ツボ

急に普通だけど、肩こりと頭痛がつづくので、ツボをおしてみました。
参考
正直通信
インフォシーク

月経（そして出血）は誰のもの？

「例外」を常識にするために。月経、「生理」、メンスについて話すときの難しさがここに。
below　the　belt　より、一部抜粋、てきとうな訳）。

たくさんのひとに月経があるし、他のたくさんのひとにはない。すべての女性に月経があるわけではないし、月経のあるひとがすべて女性というわけではない。

たとえば、、
月経はあるけど女性ではない人というのは、膣と子宮があるけど、自らを「女性」と呼ばない人たち。このひとたちはこれらの性器を持って生まれてきたけれど、さまざまな理由から自らを「女性」とはよばない。そのひとたちはトランスジェンダーやトランスセクシャル男性かもしれないし、あるいはジェンダークイア（自分を女性とも男性とも呼ばない。）かもしれない。そしてインターセックスのひとびとのなかにも出世時に男性と判断されたものの、月経があるひとや、その他複雑な性器をもったひとびとがいる。（そのなかには自らを女性と呼ぶひともいるし、そうでないひともいる）

月経はないけれど女性であるというひとたちにもいろいろな場合がある。ある人は膣、子宮、卵管がなかったり、別のひとはこのうちいくつかはあり、しかし月経をひきおこすような種類のものではではなかったりする。たとえばトランスセクシュアル女性やインターセックスのひとびと。あるひとは若く月経がはじまっていなかったり、あるひとは年をとり月経がおわったり、そのほかにも妊娠中のひと（月経ではないけど出血するひともいる）、摂食障害を含めたさまざまな病因、ピルなどの薬品で月経が一時的に止まっているひとびとがいる。

Mujers　Creando　公式ページ

Putting the Control Back in Birth Control

infodshop　news　より
（消えちゃう可能性があるので、今のうちに貼り付けちゃう）
バースコントロールを、避妊や中絶の手段をきちんと選んで手に入れられると同時にそれを人種的、政治的な理由で強制されてしまう側のひとの両方のコントロール＝管理について簡潔に（長いけど）きちんと示している文章を見つけたのでここに。日本だと障害者の出産が制限されたししてきたけど、「在日」外国人や、移民のとってはどうなっているのかわからない。これから調べなくちゃいけない。

Monday, April 25 2005 @ 02:11 PM PDT
Contributed by: Anonymous
Views: 40

FeminismFor working women, control of one's own body is constantly another turf battle in the class war. In this second article in our series on reproduction, we look at birth control and sterilization in the context of other attacks on the poor.

Putting the Control Back in Birth Control: Racism, Class and Reproductive Rights

by PJ Lilley and Jeff Shantz, Punching Out (NEFAC-Toronto)

======



The Northeastern Anarchist: Repro Series

For working women, control of one's own body is constantly another turf battle in the class war. In this second article in our series on reproduction, we look at birth control and sterilization in the context of other attacks on the poor.

======

"Rape, racism, sexism, and capitalism have been consistent elements in a long history of documented assaults against the reproductive sovereignty of Black women."[1] -Theryn Kigvamasud’ Vashti, Communities Against Rape and Abuse

As anarcha-feminists, when we think of "reproductive rights" we usually first think of a woman's right to choose when/where/how she has children in terms of her access to free, safe abortions and multiple birth control technologies. We might think of Emma Goldman standing on a soapbox risking arrest to talk to women about condoms, or of our sisters currently standing on the front lines doing clinic defense actions. But on the flip side of the same coin is the right to choose to have a child, and the access to health care and a safe environment to enable that choice. Creeping liberalism and racism manifest when the equation that abortion equals "individual choice free from state interference", or the interests of white, middle class women become the dominant interpretation of reproductive liberty.

As Dorothy Roberts said to Ms. Magazine, too often the movement puts more vigor into defending abortion rights than into fighting against the limitations put on black women's rights to reproduce. "It's a fatal obfuscation of the principle from which women's demand for reproductive rights springs: that is, the right to be, the right to exist on equal terms with all other women and men, and to create (or choose not to create) others like ourselves." As she argues, increased access to effective new contraceptives does not necessarily enhance or improve women's reproductive freedoms. [2]

Racist, patriarchal states and bosses have worked together to exercise control over women's bodies using bribes, coercion, and outright force. Slave-owning plantation masters find their modern-day counterparts in the export processing zones and maquiladoras of today. The USAID bureaucrats and "family cap" welfare administrators selectively offering Norplant and tubal ligation echo those moral regulators and eugenicists who sterilized women in poor houses, asylums and brothels in the past.

Their tactics range from social assistance incentives, which are often linked to long-term (often unsafe) birth control, to the daily pressures on factory workers to take the Pill, and even so far as state-backed mass sterilization programs. Here we will examine some of these more recent attempts (in our area of Canada and the US) to limit reproductive freedom. Our focus is on the corporate and state-backed implementation of Norplant, and on the more street-based example of vigilantism practiced by a group calling themselves "Project Prevention", and on welfare reform projects in the past decade.[3]

Historically, when we look back at the eugenics programs in the past century, it has clearly been women of color, the disabled, the sick, the women labeled "loose", and overall the poorest women who are the main targets.

Modern eugenics emerged from the Social Darwinism of the late 19th century. Eugenicists' scheme to apply biology to the task of ridding humanity of "undesirables" while promoting "desirables," was explicitly stated by Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics. Eugenic doctrines, espoused by biologists, physicians and notably the emergent social science disciplines of Psychology and Sociology, attributed poverty and criminality to an individual's biological make-up rather than the failings of social systems. Instead of looking at political and economic processes characterizing industrial capitalist expansion, proponents of eugenics identified various categories of people who were held responsible for a broad range of social problems and whose reproduction supposedly posed a threat to social stability.

The United States was the first country to sanction eugenic sterilization for those deemed "unfit." The state of Indiana had a forced sterilization law as early as 1907 which was applied to petty criminals, alcoholics, the homeless, unwed mothers, prostitutes, and children with so-called "discipline problems," after they had been herded into prisons, asylums, poorhouses, poor farms, orphans' homes, and reform schools. By the late 1920s sterilization laws had been enacted in 24 states in the US, primarily in the Atlantic region, the Midwest and California.

he United States was the first country to sanction eugenic sterilization for those deemed "unfit." The state of Indiana had a forced sterilization law as early as 1907 which was applied to petty criminals, alcoholics, the homeless, unwed mothers, prostitutes, and children with so-called "discipline problems," after they had been herded into prisons, asylums, poorhouses, poor farms, orphans' homes, and reform schools. By the late 1920s sterilization laws had been enacted in 24 states in the US, primarily in the Atlantic region, the Midwest and California.

The performance of eugenic sterilization programs in the US during the 1930s is cited as a major influence on the enactment of sterilization laws in Nazi Germany. While racist Darwinism was espoused only by a minority, even in US states that enacted eugenic laws, Nazism elevated the doctrine to a central position, declaring it official teaching after 1933. As Kevles notes:

"SS academies, in conjunction with university professors, tried to prove that races develop physical characteristics that can be directly linked to modes of behavior. In an attempt to "purge" the German population of "unworthy" members, about 400,000 men and women were sterilized (criminals, prostitutes, some poor people, alcoholics, members of mixed races, and others). On the same grounds, some people were forced to have abortions and many were killed within the so-called euthanasia program." [4]

But the racist, classist bias in many birth control programs was certainly not limited to the American racists and German Nazis. Even erstwhile progressives succumbed to eugenics' claims. In Scandinavia, sterilization was widely supported by Social Democrats, as well as noted liberals such as Gunnar Myrdal, in planning for the emerging welfare state. In Sweden thousands of women were sterilized for reasons of eugenics between 1930 and the 1970s. Up to 60,000 were sterilized without consent on such grounds as having an "unhealthy sexual appetite."

Throughout Scandinavia as well as parts of Canada and the southern US sterilization achieved broad support. This was largely related to economic rather than eugenic considerations, as sterilization presented a means of reducing relief and institutional care for the poor. In Alberta, the 'Sterilization Act' of 1928 (started under the father of right-wing politician Preston Manning) specifically targeted people in mental health institutions, but also aimed at native women, new immigrants, the disabled, unwed mothers, women accused of lesbian 'tendencies', and so on. It was only finally ended in 1972, after sterilizing more than 2,000 Albertans.

In the US, Margaret Sanger, a founder of Planned Parenthood who was championed as an early feminist by some in the 1970s, proposed in "A Plan for Peace" (1932) that Congress establish a special department for the study of "population problems" and appoint a Parliament of Population to direct and control the population through a directorship representing various branches of science. Sanger insisted that among the main objectives of the Population Parliament would be "to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924." Once controlling "the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics" Sanger suggested that "the second step would be to take an inventory of the second group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct." [5]

Following World War II, eugenics was largely discredited, through scientific criticism and the opposition of civil libertarians as well as the stigma of its deep connection with the Nazi regime. Still sterilization programs persisted in Canada and Sweden until the 1970s. In addition, echoes of eugenics can be found in recent controversies such as attempts in the US to compel poor women, especially welfare recipients, to undertake risky birth control devices such as Norplant. Eugenics brought together the economic and moral regulation of women's lives, bodies and labor.

A key element that propped up the attempts to justify these sterilizations was an explicit "ableism," the belief that those who for whatever reason, and in whatever manner, are less "abled" should also be stopped from procreation, by whatever means necessary. Here there has always been a complaint about "burdens to society," or reference to saving "tax-paying citizens." As Kigvamasud'Vashti puts it, "The value of people with disabilities is too often measured in capitalists terms - in fact, when officials are determining if a person meets the [US] federal definition of disability of the ten criteria considered is whether the person is economically self-sufficient."

The group known as "Project Prevention" (formerly known as C.R.A.C.K., Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity [sic]) plays on exactly these types of able-bodied supremacist notions. Since the early 90's, this organization has targeted poor women in many major US cities. Started by a white woman who adopted from the same mother four black children with prenatal exposure to crack, their main project is "cash for birth control for drug and alcohol addicts." They offer $200 to women who agree to sterilization or long-term birth control (you get the $200 immediately if you have your tubes tied or get a Norplant implant or $200 in installments over one year if you go with Depo-Provera or Lunelle). Acknowledging that more poor women are going to go for the $200 than rich, they flier poor, Latino and Black neighborhoods, at homeless drop-ins and shelters, and wherever they feel prostitutes or drug users might frequent. Without any concern for the short or long term health, safety or well being of the women, they use coercion, intimidation and essentially guilt them into giving over direct control over their reproduction. With all Project Prevention's fund raising and venture capitalist support, they give nothing to rehab treatment or housing programs where they recruit. They ignore the fact that if a woman is chemically addicted and in poverty, then she's also more likely to be homeless and at greater risk of rape. By telling these women they're "out of control" and that they and their children a "burden on society," C.R.A.C.K. lays down a lot of shame and discouragement just when a woman may be ready to seek treatment and support, and reinforces instead that her life is not so valuable, and she should just take the $200.

Knowing that 'tax-paying capitalist' evaluations of life are often completely ass-backwards, feminist activists in Seattle and other cities organized themselves to tear down the Project Prevention flyers. Still, they keep on coming, and also keep trying to pass legislation to make "prenatal crimes" punishable by jail and sterilization.

United States' legislation targeting poor mothers has really taken off in the area of welfare reform. In August of 1993, New Jersey was the first state to impose the family cap for welfare recipients, and by 1998, there were 21 states with some form of capping policy, whereby a (often single) woman with children receiving assistance wouldn't find any additional support if she bore another child. By 1998, 20,000 children were denied benefits in New Jersey, but it hadn't had any real effect on birthrate, and of course, served to drive many women-led families into deeper poverty.

Also starting in the 1990s, Norplant was favored by politicians and legislators as a means of population control. Underlying the distribution and administration of Norplant were racial and class based politics geared towards the control of poor women and especially poor black women.

These plans to require women on welfare to use birth control are nothing new. They have long circulated as part of neo-conservative capitalist policy to regulate the working class. For example, part of Margaret Sanger's Plan for Peace, Part E reads: "To insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble minded parents by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization."

In 1973, University of Chicago physiologist Dwight Ingle, in his sweetly titled book, Who Should Have Children?, advocated population control as an alternative to the welfare state.

Ingle proposed that individuals who could not provide their children with a healthy environment or biological inheritance - including people with genetic defects or low intelligence, welfare recipients, criminals, drug addicts, and alcoholics - should be encouraged, or forced if necessary, to refrain from childbearing. [6]

Incredibly, Ingle fantasized about a future age in which tech advances would see the insertion of pellets containing an "anti fertility agent" under the skin of every woman of childbearing age. In order to have the pellets removed women would have to apply for a license. The state would determine who was qualified for parenthood under the guidelines provided above by Ingle. With the invention and dissemination of Norplant in the 1990s, Ingle's nightmarish plan seemed to stand at the threshold of realization.

Thousands of poor black women in the US were targets of an aggressive campaign to have Norplant inserted for reproductive control, with the goal of decreasing their birth rate. The Population Council, a non-profit organization that pushes so-called "family planning" in poorer countries, originally developed Norplant. Pharmaceutical giant Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories distributed it in the US. Norplant is made up of six silicone capsules filled with the synthetic hormone levonorgestral, which are implanted just under the skin of a woman's upper arm. Once inserted Norplant prevents pregnancy for up to five years. Only sterilization has a better record of preventing pregnancies.

Immediately upon its approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), politicians and social commentators seized upon Norplant as a useful way to control the birth rates of poor black women. If its long-acting, effective and convenient character made it the perfect contraceptive, as its advocates claimed, it also made it the ideal tool for governments to control the reproduction of poor women.

Only two days after Federal approval of Norplant, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a chilling editorial entitled, "Poverty and Norplant: Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?" The editorial explicitly put forward a racist and eugenic position, offering a coercive combination of contraception and race. It went on to propose Norplant as a solution to inner-city poverty, suggesting that “the main reason more black children are living in poverty [itself a statistical lie] is that people having the most children are the ones least capable of supporting them.”[7] The editorial finished by endorsing the use of financial incentives to "encourage" women on welfare to use Norplant.

Not surprisingly, journalists around the country, from Newsweek to the New Republic leaped to the Inquirer's defense to take up the call for coercive Norplant incentives. David Frankel, director of population sciences at the Rockefeller Foundation, was even more aggressive: "Despite the infantile reaction of some black staffers [who opposed their boss' editorial]…birth control incentives would not be genocide. Such incentives would be a humane inducement to social responsibility."[8] Here again is the racist mythology that poverty is a result of personal irresponsibility and the only solution is "tough love" to force the negligent to "be responsible." Given the class character of battles over reproduction, of course, not all supporters of Norplant incentives were white. DC Mayor Marion Barry asserted that, "when you start asking the government to take care of [your babies], the government now ought to have some control over you." [9]

The public media pressure put Norplant at the center of a new program of population control politics and government programs for poor women. At the same time that neoliberal governments across the US were cutting social programs, public funding for Norplant became a popular budget item. It costs up to $500 to implant, $365 for the capsules and $500 to remove, and was directed towards poor women through Medicaid.

By 1994, otherwise cost-cutting governments had managed to spend $34 million on Norplant-related benefits. Half of the women in the US who used Norplant were Medicaid recipients. States also made millions of dollars available to provide Norplant to low income women who were ineligible for Medicaid. Wyeth-Ayerst set up The Norplant Foundation contributing almost $3 million per year to get Norplant kits to poor women. The company profits partly by targeting the devices at women who cannot "control discontinuation of the product.” [10]

Norplant was becoming the only acceptable form of welfare expenditure, as if poor women were poor only because they had children. Never mind that having Norplant inserted did nothing to pay the rent or buy food. Of course, this was primarily about moral regulation and the social control of poor women's bodies since it was directed, even as food and housing provisions were being cut, at women who were already poor but had no children.

Incentives were not enough for some governments. Within two years of Norplant's release, several state legislatures put forward measures either offering financial bonuses for Norplant use or even requiring implantation as a condition of receiving welfare benefits. In 1993 Tennessee passed a law requiring anyone receiving public assistance to be notified in writing about the state's free provision of Norplant. A North Carolina bill would have required all women having a state-funded abortion to be implanted with Norplant. Bills proposed in Maryland, Mississippi and South Carolina would have made Norplant mandatory for women on welfare.

In case there was any doubt about the eugenic basis of Norplant distribution, Nazi and former-KKK Grand Wizard and Louisiana state representative, David Duke put forward a bill paying women receiving welfare $100 a year to use Norplant as part of his "concrete proposals to reduce the illegitimate birthrate and break the cycle of poverty that truly enslaves and harms the black race" by "promoting the best strains, the best individuals."[11]

Other experimental measures (such as the "contraceptive vaccine") will likely follow Norplant as methods to reduce the fertility of black women in the US. Such contraceptive vaccines, administered by injection, can be given without a woman's full knowledge or consent. In addition, the contraceptive effect cannot be reversed once the "vaccine" is put into a woman's bloodstream. Clearly, such technologies are a threat to women's re/productive autonomy.

For Norplant, Depo-Provera or IUD, women cannot simply stop using it when they want to. This so-called convenience contributes to its coercive application. The provider controls it, not the women who use it. Once it is implanted it does not rely on a woman's consent and it is easily monitored: the rods are in or not. Health care providers can impose their moral decisions on poor women by refusing to remove it. Ensuring that implants remain in is easily done if governments mandate use. Day-to-day management of birth control is removed from women and given to a technology and the health care system that so badly services poor women. It is not about reproductive freedom but rather about pushing technologies on specified groups in order to achieve social outcomes favorable to elites.

Welfare policy is clearly dictated by capitalist economics and radicalized class politics as the struggles over Norplant show. Quite significantly the move by governments to push Norplant on poor women occurred at the same time that awareness of its negative health effects was growing, a factor leading wealthier white women, who enjoyed greater reproductive choices, to reject Norplant en masse. In a telling example of corporate and government complicity, governments stepped in to rescue their corporate partners by providing, and subsidizing, a market for the increasingly unmarketable technology. Politicians and editors of the capitalist press once again joined together to target explicitly poor black women for Norplant distribution. These media myths rarely have white counterparts in their representations. They play upon deeply manipulated fears in the US about black reproduction. Norplant was primarily distributed in centers with higher proportions of black welfare recipients, even though most women receiving welfare are not black. Because black women are five times more likely to live in poverty or receive welfare and three times more likely to be unemployed than white women in the US, policies directed at women receiving welfare and poor women are a not so sly way of targeting and controlling the lives of black women.

This plays into longstanding welfare ideology or propaganda that blames black single mothers for everything from "deviant lifestyles," welfare "dependency, " moral "degeneracy" and other terms that cover up what are really systemic socio-economic failings of capitalism. Rather than being a condemnation of capitalist economies these issues blame women for the viciousness of capitalist relations that brutalize them. Thus race and class politics work together to propel coercive birth control policies.[12]

As the case of Norplant further illustrates, these politics are played out globally. Most clinical testing for Norplant took place in Brazil, Indonesia and Egypt. Numerous ethical breaches occurred in testing of extremely poor and often illiterate women. As well researchers lost track of large numbers of users - upwards of 30 percent in come cases. In Bangladesh, Norplant clinical trials were conducted on almost 600 women in urban slums. Clinicians did not obtain informed consent to participate and clients were not given prior medical exams. Women were given monetary incentives for the insertion and discouraged from reporting problems. The studies were carried out by the national family planning and biomedical research organization, the Bangladesh Fertility Research Program.

Poverty and racism combine to drive an argument that women's health can be sacrificed for the supposed good of society or to address social problems that are not their making.

Internationally, feminists are making a strong argument that it is not over-population, but over-consumption by the richest 20% of the planet that is causing resource shortages and is destroying the environment. Also, socializing the costs of health care is crucial for our survival. Right now in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the infant mortality rate for black babies is 2.24% and 0.75% for white. It is a perpetuation of basically a 'caste' system to maintain the racist status quo.

Struggles for real reproductive liberty must be - can only be - part of struggles against racism and economic exploitation. Besides doing our clinic defenses for women seeking abortion, and just as vigorously as we would fight Nazis in the street, we need to confront the racists in the boardrooms that set welfare policy, and the right wing that organizes behind groups like "Project Prevention."[13] As one activist feminist put it, "Oppression needs to be eliminated, not the reproductive capacity of women."[14]

===============

NOTES


[1] Fact Sheet on Positive Prevention /C.R.A.C.K., prepared by Theryn Kigvamasud'Vashti, Communities Against Rape and Abuse, 2002
[2] Interview with Dorothy Roberts, by Moira Brennan. Ms. Magazine, April 2001. http://www.msmagazine.com/apr01/roberts.html
[3] A future article in the NEA series on reproduction will address the context for migrant laborers and women in newly industrialized countries.
[4] Eugenics and human rights - Statistical Data Included British Medical Journal, August 14, 1999 by Daniel J Kevles
[5] Sanger, Margaret. "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, 1932, 107-8
[6] Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty. Pantheon Books, 1997, page 110
[7] ibid, page 106.
[8] ibid, pg. 107
[9] ibid, pg. 108
[10] ibid, pg. 128
[11] ibid, pg. 109
[12] ibid, pg. 112
[13] see their website at www.projectprevention.org for a listing of cities where they recruit
[14] Hartman, Betsy - Cracking Open CRACK, zmag.org, 2000

===============

The Northeastern Anarchist: Repro Series

For working women, control of one's own body is constantly another turf battle in the class war. In this second article in our series on reproduction, we look at birth control and sterilization in the context of other attacks on the poor.

===============


PJ Lilley and Jeff Shantz are both proud anarchist parents who are members of Punching Out Collective (NEFAC-Toronto) and the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty

===============

This essay is from the newest issue of 'The Northeastern Anarchist' (#10, Spring/Summer 2005)... which includes essays on dual power and revolutionary strategy, analysis of strikes (failed BC general strike) and labor organizing (Montpelier Downtown Workers Union), an interview with an Iranian anarchist, further critique of participatory economics, looking back on five years of NEFAC, and much more!

The Northeastern Anarchist is the English-language magazine of the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists (NEFAC), covering class struggle anarchist theory, history, strategy, debate and analysis in an effort to further develop anarchist-communist ideas and practice.

クリトリスの真実

なんとなくviva　voceを読んでいて、女性器の図解のページをみていた。前からちょっと「あれ？」とおもってたのが、図の説明が「クリトリスの可視部分（visible　part　of　clitoris）」と書いてあること。だっておしりからouterlips大陰唇（だっけ、、）まで全部のってるのに、これじゃ全部クリトリスってこと、、？と混乱気味。

この図はclitoral　truthという本からとられたもので、クリトリスの再定義に沿ったものらしい。どこかのフェミニストたちがクリトリスとはあの「亀頭」の部分だけではなくてオーガズムの間に起こる変化の構造をとりまく複雑な器官全体のことと理解するにいたったというもの。

こちらはa　new　view　of　womans　bodyからとられたものだけどおなじような趣旨で描かれたイラストがあつめられている。
そのひとつに調べられる範囲（といっても普通の辞書、それじゃあんまり調べてないって）で訳つけてみました。↓


本の著者レベッカ　チョーカーは　a　woman`s　book　of　choices　、a　new　view　of　womans　body　の著者、編者でもある。

＊（はしがき）
　前にも書いたようにた自分の体を「知る」、何が起こっているか「理解」する、というのを、医者や学者とは違う意味で実践することの重要さは感じている。医者や学者がこっちの役に立たないような仕事をしてしまうのは、その仕事の本質や、それが「賃労働」であること、そして社会、政治のシステムによる要請を考えると当然ではある。セクシュアリティや体のこと、とくに「女性」のそれを考えるときはそれが解放にむかってるのか「性」にしばれているのかよくわからないときがある。１２月のギャザリングでも「この関連の「female　ejaculation（女性の「射精」??）」のワークショップには最初からいこうとしてなかったしなということをかんがえても、自分の限界がこのあたりに、、。

FEMINIST self defence 資料

見つけ次第、増やしたいと思います。未整理未分類。　護身、女性と検索しても、ぴんと来るものはそう多くない（頭にくるもの当然ある）、「feminist」といれるとヒットは少ないけど、ポイントをおさえたものがひっかる。

その一　crazy　bitch　Method（英文）

その二　AFPL　guide（英文）

その三　本：Consequence: Beyond Resisting Rape （英文）


その4　anti-street　harrasment（英文）

その５　WEN-DO（日本文）

その６　FREE　TO　FIGHT!（日本文）

その７　Fighting　Back！（英文/pdf）

乳がん、被曝、被爆、マモグラフィ

google　

乳がん、被曝　検索結果　こちら

マモグラフィ　乳がん　検索結果　こちら

ピンクリボンを「応援」、あるいはみずから啓発活動している企業はマモグラフィ製造メーカーであることが多い。
東芝
コダック

布ナプキン製作中/その他

痛みもひどい気分も今日は収まっていた。今回は痛みも気分もひどかったので、薬局へ行ったついでにいくつかハーブの抽出液をかっておいた。ひとつは５年位前に日本のコンビにでも売ってたセントジョーンズワート、もうひとつはBLACK　COHOSH。
量ががだいぶ少なくなってきた昨日のおわりから、今日もムーンカップの感触がちょっと違うことに気づく。とくにたくさん歩いたときに。どうも下のほう、出口に近いほうにいるみたいできになる。おそらく、月経前から月経中に子宮が下のほうにさがっていたから、昨日までは子宮にぴったりくっつく形だったのが、うえのほうにいってしまったので膣の入り口で座って待ってるかんじなのかなとおもった。血液以外は集めたりしないし、水分もそのほかのバクテリアのバランス（これが崩れると感染症になったりする）も変わっていないはず。もうおわりかけなら下着汚してもいいから何もつけないほうが気分いいかな、と思い始める。。数年前にかった布ナプキンはちょっとおおきいし、あきたし、ライナーをなくしたりしたので、いよいよ作ってみようと決心。買い物いったついでにフリース生地とスナップ、そして関係ないけどかわいいボタンを購入。
ルナパッドがそうだったから、なんとなくフリースって決め込んでたけど、ネットでいろいろ見てたら、やっぱりタオル地がいいかなーとか、パターン選びに迷いはじめたりしたけど、ここでとまったらめんどくさくなるぞ、とおもってとりあえず作り始めた。しばらく試行錯誤ののち、一応スナップつけるだけで出来上がりまでいった。でもまだ改造したりしたいので完成としないでおいとくことに。
布ナプキンつくりのコミュニティーを見ていたら、おもしろいかたち/構造のを作ってるひと（写真付、こちら）がいて、また感化される。素材もはだにあたるところはタオルがいいかなーとさらに考えてしまう。

prostitutes:our　life　を読み続けている。時間があったら、要約とちゃんとした感想を書きたいくらい面白い。買ってしまおうかなと検討中（今は図書館でかりている）。
鏡をやっと納得できる値段、形のものがみつかってかったので、再度SELFEXAM（鏡がないので携帯カメラで写真を撮ってちらっと見ただけだった）。ようやくはっきりとみえた。子宮口の位置で子宮の位置が上に向いてるか下に向いているかわかる。紫がかってたら妊娠のサインらしい。それと妊娠中は感染をふせぐために子宮口はしまっているらしい。viva　voce　　を読み返していたら、Herbal　Abortion に挑戦中の女性がこうしてちょくちょく観察することで変化にきずいてなにがおきているか素人した過程が書いてあった。

それにしても、、月経中のぼーっとするのとか、感情が敏感になるのとか、いい方向に働いてきた経験もたくさんあるけど、今回は助けを必要とするくらい悲しさ、不安におしまかされそうだった。セントジョーンズワートは５年前どんな風に効いたかいまいち覚えてないけど、悪くなかった気がする。抽出液だからか、今回もいい具合に効いた。ただてんっしょん高い、というとじゃなくて血の巡りがいい感じ。何よりも悲しくないからいいや。ご飯も久しぶりにおいしく作れた。

月経痛

やっぱり普段どおり昨日の２日目にひどめの月経痛。ハーブとかいってるけど、先月は生姜とレモンのお茶があったからのんだけど、今回は何も用意してなくてもらった台湾の薬をのんだら、腹痛に関しては効きがあまりにはやかった。でもなんとなく余計気持ち悪くなった気もする。今日はまだ痛みも残って、さらに体のぼおっとしかげんがすごい。今回は月経前（しかも随分まえ）の調子のわるさもつづいたし、かんじわるい。怒りムードから悲しみムードへ移行中、、これもひどめ。

毎週会議で使うパブ。今日は歩きながらの会議だった。歩きすぎ。

selfdefence中止

今日は講師が用事でこれなくて、中止。資料ももらう予定だったから体調の悪さを押しきりいったんだけど、連絡体制がとれてなくていってしばらくまってからこれないということがわかった。しょんぼり。
でもとりたかった写真が取れたからよしとしよう。。



このクラスに誘ってくれた子は今日はじめからやる気が薄く、私より早く始めてるから、同じことの繰り返しで飽きた模様。毎回新しいひとがいるから毎回（やり方をちょっとかえるにしても）最初から説明があるのがいやみたい。しょうがないけどね、、メンバーも入れ替わるし（旅してる人も多いし、、。今週また二人フィンランドとアメリカに帰っちゃうし。）。毎週これて、さらにかなりやる気のあるひとがある程度のにんずういないと、最初の予定のようにだんだんやることをかえて完成形のクラスにするのは難しいとおもいました。

Prostitutes－Our Life

70年代フランスの売春婦（セックスワーカーではなく一貫してprostituteとなっている。古めの本だからというだけじゃない気がする。この辺はまだ混乱中）達の生活から闘争、その後イギリスやアメリカにもわかった売春婦を悲惨な状況に押しやる法に反対する運動（売春の合法化の運動ではない）、家事労働に賃金を求める運動、黒人女性の運動との連帯につながっていく。
最初のフランスの売春婦の集団がおこなった教会の占拠を読み終わった。
関連団体　international　prostitutes　collective

月経開始、ムーンカップ

二、三日前から血のがてんてん、、。そしてパンツにしみるかんじになった今日はそろそろとおもってムーンカップを装着。おなかの痛みを軽く感じる。はねたりして軽い運動をしてみる。今日は午前中にお菓子とタバコを買いに行ったけどタバコを忘れた模様。でも月経痛がひどくなる（という）からまあよかったかも。まだ本格的にはじまってかんじしないなーとおもってさっきとりだしてみたらほぼまんぱん。

これはしたの赤いところだけじゃなくて、上の最初のくぼみまでちゃんとはいってる。ほぼみずっぱい透明なちょっとぬるぬるした液体。混ぜると全体にピンクに近い赤。ながしたらさーっとにげちゃった。痛みがまだひどくないのは、まださらさらした血液などしかでてきてないことと関係してるのかな。塊が通ると痛いと聞いた



装着間だけど、前よりも感じない。ネットの投稿でも見つけたけど、使うたびに装着感（ここにあるな、という感じ）は消えていくと思うひとが多いらしい。前回は初めてだしかなり意識してたけど、今日はいろいろあったし月経中ということもすっかり忘れていたくらい。午後にシャワーは言ったときはまだぜんぜんたまってなかったので、この４時間くらいの間にたくさん流れ出したのかな。

出し入れも前よりも器用にできるようになった。ここにあるキーパー（このカップのラバー製バージョン、といってもこっちのほうが先、というか有名）体験記にある、出すときに一番広がってる部分が膣の入り口に引っかかって痛い、というのは私も前回感じたこと。これが一番の難点だったけど、これはそのまま引っ張るからこうなってしまうので、入れるときのように少しつぶして、片方の端から先にそとにだして、残りを引っ張るようにしてみた。前回も少なくなってからこうして、その痛みはほぼ解消、でも多きときにそうするとこぼれないか心配だった。でも今日はまだ少ないと思って同じようにとりだしたら、実は多かった、でもこぼれなかったし、痛みはもう感じない。
ちなみにこの体験記のなかの先っぽ（ひっぱるところ）が外に出てしまってあたっていたい、というのはムーンカップの説明書によると、あれは長めにつくられてあって、外に出てはいけないので、中に納まる程度に自分でカットしなければいけない。私ははじめからほぼカットしてしまって、しまった、、と思ったけど。今は問題なし。ラバーとシリコンという素材の違い以外構造は同じと予想しているけど、実際はよく知らない。
キーパーはわたしも数年きになり、あの色と、写真でみるとやだらおおきそうなところにびびって使わなかったから、（後もちろん値段ね。長い目でみたら安いとはいっても使えなかったら意味ないし。）あまり肩をもつきもないのだけど。やっぱりラバーのほうがちょっと硬そう？
ひとついえるのは、このカップを使うすこし前にヘルスギャザリングの資料やスペキュラムで膣の中の感じ、構造や位置に親しんでいたからある程度うまくいく自信ができたということ。中学のときにタンポンを使ったときは、説明書見て、パニック、いれみても「ここはどこ？」って迷子状態でわけがわからずこわかった。奥に入りすぎてとれないということはありません、という注意書きも信用できなかった。だっておくあるじゃん、って。あのちゃちいイラストだけじゃわかんないさあ。この自分の生殖器（あのへん）全体に親しんだ感じ、自分の中ののーまらいぜーしょん。スペキュラムとかも数年前から知ってたけど、中を見てどうしよう（何があるかよくわかってなかった。子宮が見えるなんて思ってなかったし）、ということで、鏡で外性器を見ることで慣れるにとどめておいた。婦人科言ったときの検診だって、痛かったのに加えて、何でそんなところでうごかしてるのか、いったい何をしてるのか検討もつかない（もちろん聞くなんて思いつかない）野も不安をあおったものだと思い出す。


（地元のクラブの女子トイレにあったステンシル↑）

本購入

Oxfamの古本屋にはいって唯一ほしいと思った本。（社会学の棚くらしかみてないけどさ）


早々これも探してたんだった。地元のフェアトレードの商品やこういう社会運動系の本がならぶ不思議な店で発見。menstrual　extractionの詳しい解説が載っているのできになっていた。フランス製のRU-486という中絶ピルのことも気になったし。日本では未認可だけどネットで買って飲む人もいるらしい。
（メモ）最初一章はもうよんだ。アメリカで中絶手術を受けるときのアドバイスから始まり、とくに反中絶団体がクリニックを装って、そこにきた女性に中絶にたいする怖いイメージを植え付けるということに触れながら、偽クリニックを見分ける方法などを記載。さらにクリニックの前で実際に反中絶を訴えて中絶を受けに来る女性画手術を受けなれないようにあのてこのてで邪魔をする活動家を含めて、アメリカの反中絶の立場にたつ女性の２５－３０％が中絶手術をうけているという。

self defence ２回目

前回と同じメンバーでクローズとなるはずだったけど、半分しかいなかったので、そのあたりにいた3人の女の人たちを誘ってオープンでやることになった。
初めてのひとが半分だったので、先週やったこともやった。初めての三人は、大部分のあいだはあずかしそうにしたり笑ったりしてた。おもえば先週は初めての人も多かったのに（自分も含めて）わりとメリハリついてやってたのってすごいよなあと気づく。
またロールプレイをやった。先週と同じバス停ものと、あたらしいものをやった。新しいのは、前日のパーティでたちが悪かった知り合いの話を友達としていると、別の知り合いの男が割り込んでくるというせってい。自分がいやだと思った時点で、「いやなふるまいの名前をあげる」（たとえば、二人の間にわりこんできた、とか）、「どう思っているかをいう」（いやだ、気分が悪い、など）「どうするか命令する」（あっちにいけ、など）。
体の技は、腕をつかまれたときにすり抜ける方法。それを応用して攻撃の姿勢にはいるシュミレーション、うしろにいる人物に打撃をあたえる方法などを新しく学んだ。
ヒッチハイクの話も少しした。
二回目だから、講師が前回とおなじことをいうと、きっとだいじなことなんだな、とおもう。印象にのこったのは、「いままで（あなたが）自分を守るために使ってきた方法は、その時点で一番よい方法だった」というもの。いろんなやり方をこのクラスでまなぶことで、なんだあの時こうしなかったんだ、とかあまり後悔とかしないためかな、と思う。
いぬがでいるしてしょうがなかった。こわがるかとおもって、なんども外に出されていた。てきとうないいわけをつくって、男がなんどか部屋にはいってきた。すっごくきになる様子。「女だけであつまってなんかやってる」っていうのを普通に感じれないんだろうね。こっちは逆は慣れっこだよ。

検診＝予防・・？

gooブログにてみつけた素朴な疑問。ほんとそうだね。

がんを予防するために・・・。って、早期発見・早期治療・・・一次じゃなく二次予防でしょ？？？
本当に、デジタルマンモグラフィーとって、「乳がん予防のための・・・・・」日本のPinkRibon・・・。って、一次予防ってとこでは、具体的に自己検診しかないのですか？？？

今日は「乳がん」「予防」で検索したけど、でてきたのは食事、あとは予防でもない遺伝の話とかが多かった。

反ピンクリボン（？）

ピンクリボンを使って、乳がんキャンペーンをしている企業が、同時に乳がんの原因となる薬品を製造していたりするなど、おおくのピンクリボンキャンペーンに対する批判と対抗するための行動を呼びかけるサイトたち。


think before you pink
↑ピンクリボンがマラソンしながら企業による乳がん防止/研究キャンペーンに疑問をなげかけるというアニメーション。

breast cancer action
↑こちらは同じような内容、ビラなどがダウンロードできる。

くだらないのですが

ヨークシャテリア用ナプキン？
こちら

luna yoga

これもほしかったんだ。
Luna Yoga
Adelheid Ohlig


女性の生殖系の部分や出来事に役にたつヨガの実践書。
性的快感があがるとかなんか怪しい響きだけど、月経痛を和らげる方法もあるのでやっぱり見てみたい。
著者はヨガで子宮ガンを治したとか。こういうのをきくとつい引いてしまうんだけど、、。それもどうなのか。
ヨガといえば母親に適当に教えられたポーズは何のためかいまいちわからず、根気のないわたしには向いてないとか思っていたけど、目的がはっきりしてるからできるかなあ。などと期待。
出版社のサイトに抜粋を発見。
＊Fertility Dances
Excerpt pp.107-118

＊Women's Blood Mysteries
by Adelheid Ohlig