MATRIARCHAL CULTURE BOOK CLUB
The first book we will look at is Iroquois Women: an Anthology edited by W.G. Spittal, published by Iroqcrafts.
From the pubisher: “One of the most striking aspects of traditional culture was the high status of women. Through the women passed family names, clan, and nationality. Women selected and deposed Confederacy Chiefs and Sub-Chiefs. They could start and stop wars, adopt or condemn prisoners; they were the custodians of home, garden, and territory. Atonement for causing the death of a woman was twice that of a man. Men were renowned diplomats and warriors but Iroquois women were the centre of their society.”
Time and location will be announced. Please email Andrea if interested at nicandr4@aol.com or call 604-266-7194. Open to all ages and genders.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Canada's White Ribbon Campaign - Men Against Violence Against Women
The Queen's Feminist Review
Queen's University's only feminist-minded and -inspired annual literary review
[Queen's University is in Kingston, Ontario. The web page this was found on is: http://theqfr.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/script-from-last-nights-white-ribbon-campaign-launch-speech/ ]
Script from last night’s White Ribbon Campaign Launch Speech (organized by the Committee on Gender)
November 26, 2009
Last night was the launch event for this year’s White Ribbon Campaign, which is being coordinated by Kalanthe Khaiat and the rest of the Committee on Gender (COG). Unfortunately I missed it, but COG was gracious enough to forward the speech to everyone on the Facebook event. QFR has offered to host the speech on this website so that those who don’t have Facebook or were not invited to the event can still read and learn. The speaker, Michelle LaMarche, works at the Kingston Interval House, and this speech “[covers] a brief history of the White Ribbon Campaign and an overview of her work at Kingston Interval House within the broader context of women’s shelters in Canada” (from COG’s message). –Caleigh
Today, November 25th, marks the International Day for the Eradication of Violence against Women and the beginning of the annual White Ribbon Campaign in Canada. The campaign normally runs until December 6th – Canada’s National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women – also known as the anniversary, this year the 20th, of the Montreal Massacre – where 14 young women at L’Ecole Polytechnique were shot down and killed because they were women. In fact, the gunman walked into a classroom, separated the men from the women, called the women “feminists” and proceeded to shoot and kill them all. This day was an extremely unfortunate awakening for many Canadians and others around the world to the extent of violence against women in our society and how this violence is inextricably linked to gender inequality.
Violence against women is a persistent and universal problem occurring in every culture and social group. Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime – most often by someone she knows, including a member of her own family, an employer or a co-worker.
The White Ribbon campaign itself is generally organized by men working to end men’s violence against women, we at Kingston Interval House do not organize White Ribbon campaigns, but encourage men in our community to do so. Thank you to the Committee on Gender at Queen’s for taking up the task this year to raise awareness about violence against women on campus. We support your work.
Kingston Interval House is one of the oldest operating safe shelters for women and children escaping abuse and violence in Canada. The initial idea for a refuge for abused women and children came from Kingston’s Women’s Centre, with the support of a provincial court judge, social service agencies, family court workers and taxi drivers.
Since opening in December 1975, we have changed locations five times as the need for increased space or various reasons of house unsuitability arose.
In July of 2004, our current location was completed, accommodating up to 30 women and children, though we are only funded for 25.
Along with room and board for those in the shelter we offer non-judgmental counselling and support from a feminist perspective. Women are able to access information, referrals, Court and other agency accompaniment, advocacy, help filling out forms, and safety planning.
We present options and empower women to make own choices. Specialized services for children in the shelter focus on the specific needs of individual children and can include after school support, counseling and play therapy. Child & Youth workers provide opportunities for mothers to empower themselves and improve relationships within their families. We also operate a 24 hour crisis and support phone answered by trained counselors working in shelter. Women can call for access to shelter, referrals and information, and a listening ear.
Other services for women and children include:
All of our services are confidential and free of charge.
In 2007/08 we housed 84 children and 209 women, with a 102% occupancy rate. This past year we housed 65 children and 193 women in the emergency shelter, operating over-capacity again at 106%.
So, although we actually shelter less women and children, we are over-capacity more often than last year. How could this be, you might ask? The answer lies within a larger community context. As most of you already know, Kingston, along with the majority of communities in this province, is in an affordable housing crisis. There simply isn’t enough affordable, and safe, places for women and children to live in our community – and unfortunately, there has not been a lot of action on the part of government – provincial or federal – to remedy this situation.
For years, like in most shelters across the country, women stayed at Kingston Interval House on average 1 and ½ months, and 6 weeks is still our official “target” when women and their children arrive. However, the reality is very different – each year, women and their children are forced to stay longer and longer periods in the shelter – with the average resident currently staying between 6 – 9 months – a far cry from the intended temporary emergency shelter stay!
It is our hope that our new project, 2nd stage housing, will help to fill this very large gap for women and children leaving violence in our community. Transitional housing operated by Kingston Interval House but in an entirely different location than the shelter will consist of 19 apartments for women and children leaving the shelter and transitioning to the community. Families and individuals will be able to stay for up to one year.
Estimated to be open in June 2010, this housing project will offer counselling, advocacy and peer support, in a safe and welcoming environment. Apartment units will be affordable, with rents geared to women’s incomes. The building will be able to accommodate women and their children who are ready to leave the emergency shelter but not able to find suitable housing, thus freeing up space for even more women and children needing emergency safe shelter.
When we first opened our doors in 1975 there were very few shelters in the country. By 1986, there were 235 women’s shelters across Canada. In 2008, there were 569 shelters. Most of these shelters, not unlike Kingston Interval House, are usually full and maintain waiting lists – something ghastly wrong for emergency services! In fact, last year 172 women and 124 children were unable to stay in the shelter because we were full.
Brian Vallee, a journalist and author of Life with Billy and The War on Women, points out that a “surprising – and unintended – consequence of the burgeoning number of shelters in the U.S. was a 70% drop in the number of men killed by their (usually abused) spouses, ex-spouses, or girlfriends since 1976.” Having given some women the means to escape has actually saved men’s lives! However, the drop in the rate of women killed by their male intimate partners was not nearly as dramatic – less than 25% in fact. The decline in male deaths was about the same in Canada, but the rate in which women continue to be killed has not declined.
Here are some important and revealing stats:
77% of 368 women surveyed in ten shelters across Canada in 2006 were at “extreme” or “severe” risk of being killed by their intimate partners.
Of these women:
65% had been stalked
55% had been threatened with death
50% had suffered choking incidents
49% had been forced to have sex
39% had been threatened with a weapon or had a weapon used against them
And 25% had been beaten while pregnant.
These statistics do not surprise those of us who work in the anti-violence field. We know, through official government statistics, research studies and most importantly through our own experiences listening to women’s stories, anecdotally that the majority of women we see in the shelters are in extreme risk. We know that women are more vulnerable to abuse when pregnant, and that abuse often starts during pregnancy. We know that the physical abuse that pregnant women experience is often directed at their stomach and their uterus. We know that most women killed by their intimate partners are killed after separation – often within the first 3 months – we recognize this as the most dangerous time for women leaving abuse.
We listen to stories of women who are killed and how the system failed to protect them – and thus we understand why women stay in these relationships – based on a real fear, and why they return, time and time again. If it isn’t for their own immediate safety or that of their children or other family members, it is because the systems we have in place are not adequate to support them to live violence free lives.
Inadequate, unaffordable and unsafe housing; drastically reduced spending on social services and social safety nets, lack of affordable and universal child care; lack of real access to education; ridiculous and unlivable social assistance rates; and the resulting poverty that women and children are forced to live in as a result.
We understand how the child poverty rate is inextricably linked to violence against women and women’s ability to continue to live violence free lives. Women need to clothe, shelter and feed their children – and sometimes living with an abuser is the only way they can see to do that.
Thus, violence against women isn’t going to end in our society until we work to eradicate inequality and oppression. The work we do is important, we need to provide shelter and service to women and children – but we also know it isn’t enough – and we implore you to join us to work towards the ultimate eradication of the systemic barriers that keep women and children as victims.
Lastly, we also recognize that violence against women should not be viewed as a “woman’s concern”. It is both a cause and consequence of gender perceptions and affects all members of society negatively. That is why it is important for men to speak out against male violence against women – thank you to the White Ribbon campaign for encouraging this.
–
I encourage you to stop by Mac-Corry between 1 and 2pm tomorrow or any day next week to pick up a white ribbon for yourself and support this campaign to end male violence against women. Thanks to Committee on Gender for organizing
Queen's University's only feminist-minded and -inspired annual literary review
[Queen's University is in Kingston, Ontario. The web page this was found on is: http://theqfr.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/script-from-last-nights-white-ribbon-campaign-launch-speech/ ]
Script from last night’s White Ribbon Campaign Launch Speech (organized by the Committee on Gender)
November 26, 2009
Last night was the launch event for this year’s White Ribbon Campaign, which is being coordinated by Kalanthe Khaiat and the rest of the Committee on Gender (COG). Unfortunately I missed it, but COG was gracious enough to forward the speech to everyone on the Facebook event. QFR has offered to host the speech on this website so that those who don’t have Facebook or were not invited to the event can still read and learn. The speaker, Michelle LaMarche, works at the Kingston Interval House, and this speech “[covers] a brief history of the White Ribbon Campaign and an overview of her work at Kingston Interval House within the broader context of women’s shelters in Canada” (from COG’s message). –Caleigh
Today, November 25th, marks the International Day for the Eradication of Violence against Women and the beginning of the annual White Ribbon Campaign in Canada. The campaign normally runs until December 6th – Canada’s National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women – also known as the anniversary, this year the 20th, of the Montreal Massacre – where 14 young women at L’Ecole Polytechnique were shot down and killed because they were women. In fact, the gunman walked into a classroom, separated the men from the women, called the women “feminists” and proceeded to shoot and kill them all. This day was an extremely unfortunate awakening for many Canadians and others around the world to the extent of violence against women in our society and how this violence is inextricably linked to gender inequality.
Violence against women is a persistent and universal problem occurring in every culture and social group. Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime – most often by someone she knows, including a member of her own family, an employer or a co-worker.
The White Ribbon campaign itself is generally organized by men working to end men’s violence against women, we at Kingston Interval House do not organize White Ribbon campaigns, but encourage men in our community to do so. Thank you to the Committee on Gender at Queen’s for taking up the task this year to raise awareness about violence against women on campus. We support your work.
Kingston Interval House is one of the oldest operating safe shelters for women and children escaping abuse and violence in Canada. The initial idea for a refuge for abused women and children came from Kingston’s Women’s Centre, with the support of a provincial court judge, social service agencies, family court workers and taxi drivers.
Since opening in December 1975, we have changed locations five times as the need for increased space or various reasons of house unsuitability arose.
In July of 2004, our current location was completed, accommodating up to 30 women and children, though we are only funded for 25.
Along with room and board for those in the shelter we offer non-judgmental counselling and support from a feminist perspective. Women are able to access information, referrals, Court and other agency accompaniment, advocacy, help filling out forms, and safety planning.
We present options and empower women to make own choices. Specialized services for children in the shelter focus on the specific needs of individual children and can include after school support, counseling and play therapy. Child & Youth workers provide opportunities for mothers to empower themselves and improve relationships within their families. We also operate a 24 hour crisis and support phone answered by trained counselors working in shelter. Women can call for access to shelter, referrals and information, and a listening ear.
Other services for women and children include:
Access to two hours of free legal advice – an income tested program.
Quick access to funds such as:Danielle Duscheneau fund – for safety issues- replace broken doors and windows (door locks, repairs to windows, locks on windows, etc.), legal, transportation to court and appointments, transportation to leave community for safety reasons
Queen’s Women’s Centre Transition Fund – funds for women leaving the shelter who need help with start-up and moving costs
Community Counselling – individual counseling for women in the community – in either English or French, who wish to establish violence free lives – these women can be in an abusive relationship, left yesterday or left 50 years ago – if they feel the need for support – we are there for them.
Children who have been exposed to domestic violence – individual and group counselling
Aboriginal and Rural Outreach program – culturally specific individual and group counselling
All of our services are confidential and free of charge.
In 2007/08 we housed 84 children and 209 women, with a 102% occupancy rate. This past year we housed 65 children and 193 women in the emergency shelter, operating over-capacity again at 106%.
So, although we actually shelter less women and children, we are over-capacity more often than last year. How could this be, you might ask? The answer lies within a larger community context. As most of you already know, Kingston, along with the majority of communities in this province, is in an affordable housing crisis. There simply isn’t enough affordable, and safe, places for women and children to live in our community – and unfortunately, there has not been a lot of action on the part of government – provincial or federal – to remedy this situation.
For years, like in most shelters across the country, women stayed at Kingston Interval House on average 1 and ½ months, and 6 weeks is still our official “target” when women and their children arrive. However, the reality is very different – each year, women and their children are forced to stay longer and longer periods in the shelter – with the average resident currently staying between 6 – 9 months – a far cry from the intended temporary emergency shelter stay!
It is our hope that our new project, 2nd stage housing, will help to fill this very large gap for women and children leaving violence in our community. Transitional housing operated by Kingston Interval House but in an entirely different location than the shelter will consist of 19 apartments for women and children leaving the shelter and transitioning to the community. Families and individuals will be able to stay for up to one year.
Estimated to be open in June 2010, this housing project will offer counselling, advocacy and peer support, in a safe and welcoming environment. Apartment units will be affordable, with rents geared to women’s incomes. The building will be able to accommodate women and their children who are ready to leave the emergency shelter but not able to find suitable housing, thus freeing up space for even more women and children needing emergency safe shelter.
When we first opened our doors in 1975 there were very few shelters in the country. By 1986, there were 235 women’s shelters across Canada. In 2008, there were 569 shelters. Most of these shelters, not unlike Kingston Interval House, are usually full and maintain waiting lists – something ghastly wrong for emergency services! In fact, last year 172 women and 124 children were unable to stay in the shelter because we were full.
Brian Vallee, a journalist and author of Life with Billy and The War on Women, points out that a “surprising – and unintended – consequence of the burgeoning number of shelters in the U.S. was a 70% drop in the number of men killed by their (usually abused) spouses, ex-spouses, or girlfriends since 1976.” Having given some women the means to escape has actually saved men’s lives! However, the drop in the rate of women killed by their male intimate partners was not nearly as dramatic – less than 25% in fact. The decline in male deaths was about the same in Canada, but the rate in which women continue to be killed has not declined.
Here are some important and revealing stats:
77% of 368 women surveyed in ten shelters across Canada in 2006 were at “extreme” or “severe” risk of being killed by their intimate partners.
Of these women:
65% had been stalked
55% had been threatened with death
50% had suffered choking incidents
49% had been forced to have sex
39% had been threatened with a weapon or had a weapon used against them
And 25% had been beaten while pregnant.
These statistics do not surprise those of us who work in the anti-violence field. We know, through official government statistics, research studies and most importantly through our own experiences listening to women’s stories, anecdotally that the majority of women we see in the shelters are in extreme risk. We know that women are more vulnerable to abuse when pregnant, and that abuse often starts during pregnancy. We know that the physical abuse that pregnant women experience is often directed at their stomach and their uterus. We know that most women killed by their intimate partners are killed after separation – often within the first 3 months – we recognize this as the most dangerous time for women leaving abuse.
We listen to stories of women who are killed and how the system failed to protect them – and thus we understand why women stay in these relationships – based on a real fear, and why they return, time and time again. If it isn’t for their own immediate safety or that of their children or other family members, it is because the systems we have in place are not adequate to support them to live violence free lives.
Inadequate, unaffordable and unsafe housing; drastically reduced spending on social services and social safety nets, lack of affordable and universal child care; lack of real access to education; ridiculous and unlivable social assistance rates; and the resulting poverty that women and children are forced to live in as a result.
We understand how the child poverty rate is inextricably linked to violence against women and women’s ability to continue to live violence free lives. Women need to clothe, shelter and feed their children – and sometimes living with an abuser is the only way they can see to do that.
Thus, violence against women isn’t going to end in our society until we work to eradicate inequality and oppression. The work we do is important, we need to provide shelter and service to women and children – but we also know it isn’t enough – and we implore you to join us to work towards the ultimate eradication of the systemic barriers that keep women and children as victims.
Lastly, we also recognize that violence against women should not be viewed as a “woman’s concern”. It is both a cause and consequence of gender perceptions and affects all members of society negatively. That is why it is important for men to speak out against male violence against women – thank you to the White Ribbon campaign for encouraging this.
–
I encourage you to stop by Mac-Corry between 1 and 2pm tomorrow or any day next week to pick up a white ribbon for yourself and support this campaign to end male violence against women. Thanks to Committee on Gender for organizing
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Vancouver Status of Women: Claiming Our Strength Course
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: LEAP Coordinator
Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Subject: VSW presents Dec. 19 - Claiming Our Strength, Struggle & Space (one-day course)
To: LEAP Coordinator
*please forward widely – apologies for cross-postings!*
VSW’s Leadership Empowerment Activism Program (LEAP)
is proud to present...
Claiming Our Strength, Struggle & Space:
Racialized Women Facilitators
Building Critical and Responsive Communities
a one-day course for women who identify as racialized
(Indigenous/Aboriginal/First Nations/Metis/Inuit women and Women of Colour) facilitators.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
10:00am – 4:30pm
Kiwassa Neighbourhood House
2425 Oxford Street
Vancouver, B.C. – Unceded Coast Salish Territory
Participation is FREE.
Wheelchair accessible space.
Lunch, bus tickets, and on-site childcare provided.
About the course:
This day long workshop will bring together racialized women who facilitate, consult with or coordinate groups, who wish to critically examine the complexities of working in community and/or organizational development within an anti-oppression/intersectional framework. Moving away from the Western facilitation theory and method, that has had negative consequences for both our communities and the facilitators providing this work, this workshop provides racialized facilitators the opportunity to explore specific tools and strategies to sustain and build capacity while identifying key areas of struggle and strength.
About the facilitators:
Rain Daniels, BA, MEd (Current) is a mixed heritage Indigenous woman who has worked with Indigenous people and communities and the non-Indigenous community for the last 18 years in a variety of capacities including front line work, training, educational workshops, and community and organizational development. For the last 5 years, she has worked exclusively in community and organizational development with a focus on anti-oppression, anti-racism, intersectionality and negotiating tensions within groups and communities. Rain’s personal vision is to enhance the potential of individuals and groups within these contexts.
Benita Bunjun, BA, MA, has been a community consultant and facilitator for the past 10 years working with social justice organizations to build healthy sustainable organizations. She is currently an Interdisciplinary Studies PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia researching organizational culture, intersectionality and power relations. Benita has been active in the women’s and social justice movement at the national, provincial and local levels, including her involvement with the Vancouver Status of Women for the last 9 years as Administrator /Fundraiser, Project Coordinator and Coordinating Collective member. She currently teaches in Women’s and Gender Studies at the UBC.
We have space for 25 participants.
To register, contact leapcoordinator@vsw.ca
by Friday, December 11, 2009.
LEAP Coordinator
Vancouver Status of Women
2652 East Hastings St.
Vancouver - Coast Salish Territory
www.vsw.ca
Phone: 604-255-6554
Fax: 604-255-7508
E-mail: leapcoordinator@vsw.ca
When I dare to be powerful - to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. - Audre Lorde
From: LEAP Coordinator
Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Subject: VSW presents Dec. 19 - Claiming Our Strength, Struggle & Space (one-day course)
To: LEAP Coordinator
*please forward widely – apologies for cross-postings!*
VSW’s Leadership Empowerment Activism Program (LEAP)
is proud to present...
Claiming Our Strength, Struggle & Space:
Racialized Women Facilitators
Building Critical and Responsive Communities
a one-day course for women who identify as racialized
(Indigenous/Aboriginal/First Nations/Metis/Inuit women and Women of Colour) facilitators.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
10:00am – 4:30pm
Kiwassa Neighbourhood House
2425 Oxford Street
Vancouver, B.C. – Unceded Coast Salish Territory
Participation is FREE.
Wheelchair accessible space.
Lunch, bus tickets, and on-site childcare provided.
About the course:
This day long workshop will bring together racialized women who facilitate, consult with or coordinate groups, who wish to critically examine the complexities of working in community and/or organizational development within an anti-oppression/intersectional framework. Moving away from the Western facilitation theory and method, that has had negative consequences for both our communities and the facilitators providing this work, this workshop provides racialized facilitators the opportunity to explore specific tools and strategies to sustain and build capacity while identifying key areas of struggle and strength.
About the facilitators:
Rain Daniels, BA, MEd (Current) is a mixed heritage Indigenous woman who has worked with Indigenous people and communities and the non-Indigenous community for the last 18 years in a variety of capacities including front line work, training, educational workshops, and community and organizational development. For the last 5 years, she has worked exclusively in community and organizational development with a focus on anti-oppression, anti-racism, intersectionality and negotiating tensions within groups and communities. Rain’s personal vision is to enhance the potential of individuals and groups within these contexts.
Benita Bunjun, BA, MA, has been a community consultant and facilitator for the past 10 years working with social justice organizations to build healthy sustainable organizations. She is currently an Interdisciplinary Studies PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia researching organizational culture, intersectionality and power relations. Benita has been active in the women’s and social justice movement at the national, provincial and local levels, including her involvement with the Vancouver Status of Women for the last 9 years as Administrator /Fundraiser, Project Coordinator and Coordinating Collective member. She currently teaches in Women’s and Gender Studies at the UBC.
We have space for 25 participants.
To register, contact leapcoordinator@vsw.ca
by Friday, December 11, 2009.
LEAP Coordinator
Vancouver Status of Women
2652 East Hastings St.
Vancouver - Coast Salish Territory
www.vsw.ca
Phone: 604-255-6554
Fax: 604-255-7508
E-mail: leapcoordinator@vsw.ca
When I dare to be powerful - to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. - Audre Lorde
Violence Against Women More Serious Than Flu
Editorial from the Guelph Mercury, http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/article/565487
Violence against women remains an epidemic
Nov. 25 is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and kicks off 16 days of action. Why do we need a day and why do we need 16 days of them? Nov. 25 was picked because on that day, in 1960 three activist sisters were murdered under the orders of the Dominican Republic dictator Rafuel Trujillo. The day was marked by the United Nations, in 1999, and this year marks its 10th anniversary. The days of action end on Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day. The purpose is to draw attention to violence against women as a human rights issue. In Canada, this year will mark the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre.
Dec. 6, 1989, is one of those days where you never forget where you were when the news hit. Like the day John Lennon was shot, or when the airplanes hit the Twin Towers. I came home from work with my two-year-old son in tow and turned on the news. My heart stopped and I stood there in shock watching the coverage and the story unfold. At the time I was a volunteer at Guelph Wellington Women in Crisis. I knew all too well the implications of what Marc Lepine had done, when he yelled: “I hate feminists,” as he separated the women from the men and shot the women at Ecole Polytechnique. It is hard to imagine someone so full of hatred. But, as a volunteer at the shelter, I saw the results of such hatred on a regular basis.
The statistics in Canada are dismal. In 2008, there were 146 female victims of homicide. Of those, 45 were murdered by their spouse or ex-spouse, according to Statistics Canada. We have a Highway of Tears in B.C. where women have gone missing and are presumed dead. For Aboriginal women in this country every highway is a highway of tears. According to Beverley Jacobs, of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, over the last 20 years there has been an estimated 520 aboriginal women who have been murdered or reported missing across Canada. It’s a dirty little secret we don’t like to acknowledge. Most of the women who have been murdered along the Highway of Tears are aboriginal, as were most of the victims Robert Pickton is accused of killing. This is an urgent issue that requires attention from several federal ministries, yet none are taking action. The only province doing anything is Manitoba, where there are 75 missing aboriginal women to date. It has formed a special task force to try to solve cases of murdered and missing women.
H1N1 has killed relatively few people across this country and yet has caused a media sensation as well as swift government action. So why is there so little action when it comes to the epidemic death rate of aboriginal women murdered in this country? The answer is systemic racism and indifference to the issues of violence against women. Women are targeted because they are women, rarely are men targeted for the same reason. Are aboriginal women targeted because perpetrators believe that can get away with it if they victimize such an individual? After all, when an aboriginal woman goes missing, they must know it may be weeks before it will be taken seriously. We need to change these inequalities through awareness of the reasons why these inequalities exist. This is a human rights issue.
When I put my son to bed that cold December night and watched him fall to sleep, I made a promise to him. I promised to teach him to honour and work for equality. In other words I promised to raise him with a feminist consciousness. He has not disappointed me – neither has that choice.
Judith Sainsbury is a member of the Guelph Mercury Community Editorial Board.
Violence against women remains an epidemic
Nov. 25 is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and kicks off 16 days of action. Why do we need a day and why do we need 16 days of them? Nov. 25 was picked because on that day, in 1960 three activist sisters were murdered under the orders of the Dominican Republic dictator Rafuel Trujillo. The day was marked by the United Nations, in 1999, and this year marks its 10th anniversary. The days of action end on Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day. The purpose is to draw attention to violence against women as a human rights issue. In Canada, this year will mark the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre.
Dec. 6, 1989, is one of those days where you never forget where you were when the news hit. Like the day John Lennon was shot, or when the airplanes hit the Twin Towers. I came home from work with my two-year-old son in tow and turned on the news. My heart stopped and I stood there in shock watching the coverage and the story unfold. At the time I was a volunteer at Guelph Wellington Women in Crisis. I knew all too well the implications of what Marc Lepine had done, when he yelled: “I hate feminists,” as he separated the women from the men and shot the women at Ecole Polytechnique. It is hard to imagine someone so full of hatred. But, as a volunteer at the shelter, I saw the results of such hatred on a regular basis.
The statistics in Canada are dismal. In 2008, there were 146 female victims of homicide. Of those, 45 were murdered by their spouse or ex-spouse, according to Statistics Canada. We have a Highway of Tears in B.C. where women have gone missing and are presumed dead. For Aboriginal women in this country every highway is a highway of tears. According to Beverley Jacobs, of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, over the last 20 years there has been an estimated 520 aboriginal women who have been murdered or reported missing across Canada. It’s a dirty little secret we don’t like to acknowledge. Most of the women who have been murdered along the Highway of Tears are aboriginal, as were most of the victims Robert Pickton is accused of killing. This is an urgent issue that requires attention from several federal ministries, yet none are taking action. The only province doing anything is Manitoba, where there are 75 missing aboriginal women to date. It has formed a special task force to try to solve cases of murdered and missing women.
H1N1 has killed relatively few people across this country and yet has caused a media sensation as well as swift government action. So why is there so little action when it comes to the epidemic death rate of aboriginal women murdered in this country? The answer is systemic racism and indifference to the issues of violence against women. Women are targeted because they are women, rarely are men targeted for the same reason. Are aboriginal women targeted because perpetrators believe that can get away with it if they victimize such an individual? After all, when an aboriginal woman goes missing, they must know it may be weeks before it will be taken seriously. We need to change these inequalities through awareness of the reasons why these inequalities exist. This is a human rights issue.
When I put my son to bed that cold December night and watched him fall to sleep, I made a promise to him. I promised to teach him to honour and work for equality. In other words I promised to raise him with a feminist consciousness. He has not disappointed me – neither has that choice.
Judith Sainsbury is a member of the Guelph Mercury Community Editorial Board.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Lauren Oates backs Afghan Women's Rights
When it comes to defending human rights, Canadian shows age matters
By Elaine O’Connor, Vancouver ProvinceNovember 22, 2009
To see picture, visit original: http://www.canada.com/news/defending+human+rights+Canadian+shows+matters/2254230/story.html
“At that time I don’t think I could place Afghanistan on a map, but I was so enraged by what I read. I just couldn’t shake my fury and disbelief that my counterparts in that part of the world had effectively been stripped of their rights, simply for being female,” recalls Oates, now 27.
So the high-schooler fired off a 400-signature petition to the Canadian, U.S. and even Taliban governments, then promptly joined Amnesty International and became one of their youth leaders.
A few years later, she came across a mention of a new Canadian women’s organization called Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan and offered to help set up a Vancouver chapter. Only later did they learn their new chapter president was 16 years old.
Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan was founded by a small group of Calgary women in the late 1990s who met in a development studies university course and were shocked by what they learned of the human- rights violations committed by Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Since then, it has grown to about 2,000 members in 14 chapters across Canada. The non-profit puts 100 per cent of donations toward programs on the ground in Afghanistan, and chapters often sell Afghan women’s handmade crafts as fundraisers.
The group aims both to raise awareness of the human-rights issues of Afghan women and to support the education and development of Afghan women. From its inception to 2007, CW4WA has made grants totalling $1.69 million to women’s programs in Afghanistan addressing education, health care, skills training and human- rights awareness in the country.
CW4WA works with partners in 10 Afghan provinces to fund projects such as the Omid-e-Mirmun orphanage for girls aged three to 14 and women’s resource centres in Kabul, Jalalabad and rural villages that offer literacy, income-generation and human-rights-education classes, and basic health care. They have also supported girls schools, teacher and nurse training, a women’s shelter and street-youth shelter.
The organization soon discovered Oates’ age didn’t matter. In short order, the teenager organized a fundraising dinner featuring journalist Sally Armstrong, a pioneer on Afghan reporting, and promptly raised $5,000. In 2004, she was voted on to the board and served as vice-president.
In the course of her work, Oates has visited Afghanistan 14 times, working as a consultant on gender, education and human rights for CW4WA and others.
“The first time I visited, I was struck by the near total destruction of Kabul. . . . People squatted in bombed out houses and lived in squalor,” she recalls.
The country “is a place where unspeakable suffering has taken place, but where people still uphold the highest standards of hospitality, are impeccably polite, love their kids ferociously and make great sacrifices for the chance to go to school. There’s a resiliency there that’s remarkable.”
Since 2002, Kabul has changed dramatically. It’s more crowded and developed. The country went from zero enrolment for girls to millions being in school, but the quality of education is low.
“There has been a lot of economic growth and more women opening their own businesses, in part because of lots of microcredit and training opportunities from humanitarian organizations.”
Foreign non-profits are a key part of helping the nation rebuild, Oates says.
“Our programs have led to thousands of women becoming literate, thousands receiving training and jobs and, most importantly, to women feeling empowered in their lives,” says Oates.
Oates, who was named Chatelaine’s Woman of the Year in 2000 and a 2001 Woman of Influence, is running a CW4WA/CIDA-funded teacher training program in Afghanistan that is upgrading the skills of 500 local teachers.
Vancouver Province eoconnor@theprovince.com
=================================================
Completely different coverage of the same activist in New Media:
http://jnarvey.com/2009/11/22/best-way-to-taliban-proof-afghanistan-teach-the-kids-to-read/
New Media
Essays and opinions on current affairs and politics as seen from Canada's west coast. Presented by new media ink slinger Jonathon Narvey
The Best Way to Taliban-Proof Afghanistan. Stay Involved
Published by jnarvey at 12:31 pm under Afghanistan, Canada, Causes, Taliban, human rights
Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee co-founder and professional human rights advocate Lauryn Oates issues a call to action for the international mission in Afghanistan: stay involved and help provide education to the new generation — and by the way, make sure the security is there so that the fanatics don’t wreck the these efforts in the meantime:
I think it’s imperative that an international security force remain on the ground in Afghanistan for at least a decade to come, and that should include representation from Canada. This is part of the solution in that it will provide much needed breathing space to build the foundations of a long-term solution: the establishment of effective, quality education, health care, good governance, legal reform, poverty alleviation, and space for the growth of civil society. But the Canadian government, and other donor governments who want to see a stable, peaceful Afghanistan must begin to explicitly make the link between long-term security and quality education; and they must be in it for the long haul.
Education is the most important place donor governments can put their money. But it will take years, if not decades, of commitment and there must be clear measures of accountability for results. It’s not enough that schools are open and pupils – girls and boys – are in their seats. More must be done, and soon. By investing in a quality education system in Afghanistan, Canada will help prevent future wars; and by maintaining a military presence on the ground now and beyond 2011, they can help stop this one.
This of course is in stark contrast to the strategy that appears to be favored by Afghan parliamentarian Malalai Joya, the darling of the largely leftist “troops-out-now” movement. Joya has still failed to explain how an international pullout followed by a civil war and eventual Taliban victory would be good for Afghan women.
Indeed, it is clear that all Afghan women with access to email list-servers and other means of communication are virtually unanimous in their opposition to Joya’s treacherous demagoguery. That’s because they know what a Taliban victory means in Afghanistan.
By Elaine O’Connor, Vancouver ProvinceNovember 22, 2009
To see picture, visit original: http://www.canada.com/news/defending+human+rights+Canadian+shows+matters/2254230/story.html
“At that time I don’t think I could place Afghanistan on a map, but I was so enraged by what I read. I just couldn’t shake my fury and disbelief that my counterparts in that part of the world had effectively been stripped of their rights, simply for being female,” recalls Oates, now 27.
So the high-schooler fired off a 400-signature petition to the Canadian, U.S. and even Taliban governments, then promptly joined Amnesty International and became one of their youth leaders.
A few years later, she came across a mention of a new Canadian women’s organization called Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan and offered to help set up a Vancouver chapter. Only later did they learn their new chapter president was 16 years old.
Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan was founded by a small group of Calgary women in the late 1990s who met in a development studies university course and were shocked by what they learned of the human- rights violations committed by Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Since then, it has grown to about 2,000 members in 14 chapters across Canada. The non-profit puts 100 per cent of donations toward programs on the ground in Afghanistan, and chapters often sell Afghan women’s handmade crafts as fundraisers.
The group aims both to raise awareness of the human-rights issues of Afghan women and to support the education and development of Afghan women. From its inception to 2007, CW4WA has made grants totalling $1.69 million to women’s programs in Afghanistan addressing education, health care, skills training and human- rights awareness in the country.
CW4WA works with partners in 10 Afghan provinces to fund projects such as the Omid-e-Mirmun orphanage for girls aged three to 14 and women’s resource centres in Kabul, Jalalabad and rural villages that offer literacy, income-generation and human-rights-education classes, and basic health care. They have also supported girls schools, teacher and nurse training, a women’s shelter and street-youth shelter.
The organization soon discovered Oates’ age didn’t matter. In short order, the teenager organized a fundraising dinner featuring journalist Sally Armstrong, a pioneer on Afghan reporting, and promptly raised $5,000. In 2004, she was voted on to the board and served as vice-president.
In the course of her work, Oates has visited Afghanistan 14 times, working as a consultant on gender, education and human rights for CW4WA and others.
“The first time I visited, I was struck by the near total destruction of Kabul. . . . People squatted in bombed out houses and lived in squalor,” she recalls.
The country “is a place where unspeakable suffering has taken place, but where people still uphold the highest standards of hospitality, are impeccably polite, love their kids ferociously and make great sacrifices for the chance to go to school. There’s a resiliency there that’s remarkable.”
Since 2002, Kabul has changed dramatically. It’s more crowded and developed. The country went from zero enrolment for girls to millions being in school, but the quality of education is low.
“There has been a lot of economic growth and more women opening their own businesses, in part because of lots of microcredit and training opportunities from humanitarian organizations.”
Foreign non-profits are a key part of helping the nation rebuild, Oates says.
“Our programs have led to thousands of women becoming literate, thousands receiving training and jobs and, most importantly, to women feeling empowered in their lives,” says Oates.
Oates, who was named Chatelaine’s Woman of the Year in 2000 and a 2001 Woman of Influence, is running a CW4WA/CIDA-funded teacher training program in Afghanistan that is upgrading the skills of 500 local teachers.
Vancouver Province eoconnor@theprovince.com
=================================================
Completely different coverage of the same activist in New Media:
http://jnarvey.com/2009/11/22/best-way-to-taliban-proof-afghanistan-teach-the-kids-to-read/
New Media
Essays and opinions on current affairs and politics as seen from Canada's west coast. Presented by new media ink slinger Jonathon Narvey
The Best Way to Taliban-Proof Afghanistan. Stay Involved
Published by jnarvey at 12:31 pm under Afghanistan, Canada, Causes, Taliban, human rights
Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee co-founder and professional human rights advocate Lauryn Oates issues a call to action for the international mission in Afghanistan: stay involved and help provide education to the new generation — and by the way, make sure the security is there so that the fanatics don’t wreck the these efforts in the meantime:
I think it’s imperative that an international security force remain on the ground in Afghanistan for at least a decade to come, and that should include representation from Canada. This is part of the solution in that it will provide much needed breathing space to build the foundations of a long-term solution: the establishment of effective, quality education, health care, good governance, legal reform, poverty alleviation, and space for the growth of civil society. But the Canadian government, and other donor governments who want to see a stable, peaceful Afghanistan must begin to explicitly make the link between long-term security and quality education; and they must be in it for the long haul.
Education is the most important place donor governments can put their money. But it will take years, if not decades, of commitment and there must be clear measures of accountability for results. It’s not enough that schools are open and pupils – girls and boys – are in their seats. More must be done, and soon. By investing in a quality education system in Afghanistan, Canada will help prevent future wars; and by maintaining a military presence on the ground now and beyond 2011, they can help stop this one.
This of course is in stark contrast to the strategy that appears to be favored by Afghan parliamentarian Malalai Joya, the darling of the largely leftist “troops-out-now” movement. Joya has still failed to explain how an international pullout followed by a civil war and eventual Taliban victory would be good for Afghan women.
Indeed, it is clear that all Afghan women with access to email list-servers and other means of communication are virtually unanimous in their opposition to Joya’s treacherous demagoguery. That’s because they know what a Taliban victory means in Afghanistan.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Corruption Impacts Women
I just received this item from the WUNRN. It has a link to an article about how corruption affects women:
Link to AWID Analysis: HOW DOES CORRUPTION IMPACT WOMEN?
http://www.awid.org:80/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/How-does-corruption-impact-women
In the same email was a link to a report of a study from Transparency International about Corruption Perceptions. Canada shows up as sharing 8th place with Australia and Iceland, in terms of public perception and confidence that the country is not very corrupt. The countries that outranked us in this study are 1 New Zealand, 2 Denmark, 3 Singapore, 3 Sweden, 5 Switzerland, 6 Finland, and 6 Netherlands. Immediately after Canada are Norway and Hong Kong.
Here's a link to that report in full:
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table
Having lived in Canada for seven years now, I am starting to see that there is actually a great deal of corruption here. Much of it is in the form of graft - these days known as public-private partnerships - in which profits of activities are funneled to private parties while the costs and risks are laid off on the taxpayers. There are also notorious outright bribes - for example, the Mulroney/Schreiber affair, and the BC Rail sale. There have also been notable large-scale instances of political parties getting kickbacks - the sponsorship scandal, and the Conservatives' recent scandal involving kickbacks from candidates' individual campaigns to the party in violation of campaign accounting rules. There is also the kind of corrupt self-dealing where government officials vote themselves raises and keep them even after a downturn, while cutting everyone else's money and raising everyone else's taxes. Recently I heard about an investigation of seniors in care being ripped off for valuable real estate, apparently on a large scale with no one intervening. Government tearing up labour contracts and privatizing the jobs to profit-making entities that pay half the wage is another example. So are the frequent changes to student loan and bursary regulations that make this one of the most arcane areas of finance in the world and keep students on the hook for high interest loans many years longer than in other countries.
And these are just some of the corruptions that have been reported. There are others we can only suspect, such as the Conservatives receiving campaign money from US conservatives, likely funneled through Canadian branches of US organizations. So, let's not pat ourselves on the back too much, but keep our eyes open and try to make everyone do better.
Link to AWID Analysis: HOW DOES CORRUPTION IMPACT WOMEN?
http://www.awid.org:80/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/How-does-corruption-impact-women
In the same email was a link to a report of a study from Transparency International about Corruption Perceptions. Canada shows up as sharing 8th place with Australia and Iceland, in terms of public perception and confidence that the country is not very corrupt. The countries that outranked us in this study are 1 New Zealand, 2 Denmark, 3 Singapore, 3 Sweden, 5 Switzerland, 6 Finland, and 6 Netherlands. Immediately after Canada are Norway and Hong Kong.
Here's a link to that report in full:
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table
Having lived in Canada for seven years now, I am starting to see that there is actually a great deal of corruption here. Much of it is in the form of graft - these days known as public-private partnerships - in which profits of activities are funneled to private parties while the costs and risks are laid off on the taxpayers. There are also notorious outright bribes - for example, the Mulroney/Schreiber affair, and the BC Rail sale. There have also been notable large-scale instances of political parties getting kickbacks - the sponsorship scandal, and the Conservatives' recent scandal involving kickbacks from candidates' individual campaigns to the party in violation of campaign accounting rules. There is also the kind of corrupt self-dealing where government officials vote themselves raises and keep them even after a downturn, while cutting everyone else's money and raising everyone else's taxes. Recently I heard about an investigation of seniors in care being ripped off for valuable real estate, apparently on a large scale with no one intervening. Government tearing up labour contracts and privatizing the jobs to profit-making entities that pay half the wage is another example. So are the frequent changes to student loan and bursary regulations that make this one of the most arcane areas of finance in the world and keep students on the hook for high interest loans many years longer than in other countries.
And these are just some of the corruptions that have been reported. There are others we can only suspect, such as the Conservatives receiving campaign money from US conservatives, likely funneled through Canadian branches of US organizations. So, let's not pat ourselves on the back too much, but keep our eyes open and try to make everyone do better.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Mammograms Were Oversold
This article from Newsweek refers to the overselling of hormone replacement therapy as well as overselling of mammography. There have long been two trends in the women's health movement, one that bought into mammography and had women trying to convince other women to get them; the other one, among a smaller and more informed group, making the point that low-dose radiation is the only thing definitely known to cause cancer, so why expose the breasts of healthy women to it en masse? This article makes the point that pre-menopausal women have denser breasts making mammography more difficult. They also tend to have estrogen-stimulated cancers that are fast-growing. Post-menopausal women have less dense breasts, but we also tend to have slower-growing tumors that can be detected by breast exam before reaching the state of metastasizing.
The best thing about this expose is that there are other technologies for diagnosing breast cancer that have been in development for years, but because of the overwhelming "popularity" of mammography and the huge investments that have been made in the equipment and the promotion for it, it was unlikely one of those would actually be funded for approval and marketing. Maybe now we will get a better technology for breast tumor diagnosis.
-FW
The Myth of the Mammogram
Why many American women are resolutely rejecting the new mammogram recommendations, despite mixed reaction in the medical community.
By Pat Wingert | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 20, 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/223696/page/1
Most adult women know a woman in her 40s who was diagnosed with breast cancer and died. So the news this week that mammograms and self–breast exams do little to protect women under 50 against breast cancer—and that doctors have nothing new to offer in their stead—felt like a real slap to women who have been diligently doing everything they were told to do to protect themselves. So perhaps that's why, despite the fact that an expert panel insists that its recommendations are designed to reduce young women's exposure to radiation and unnecessary biopsies, and despite strong evidence supporting new guidelines, many women across the country have been rallying against the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, demanding that access to mammograms for women under 50 continue.
In many respects, the sense of betrayal rivals the news back in 2002 that hormone therapy—long pushed by doctors as a way for women to keep their aging hearts strong, despite a lack of strong evidence—turned out to increase the risk of heart disease, breast cancer, stroke, and blood clots. When conventional wisdom about sensitive health issues is turned on its head seemingly overnight, is there any surprise that women are upset and angry?
"We spent 20 years telling women to be afraid, be very afraid, of breast cancer, and that they could save their lives through early detection," says Cindy Pearson, executive director of the National Women’s Health Network. But in fact, the evidence has been mounting since 1992, when a Canadian National Breast Cancer Study concluded that mammograms had no effect on mortality for premenopausal women 40 to 50 years old. Scientists have long known that mammography becomes more effective after menopause; as estrogen and progesterone levels drop, the breast becomes less dense and easier to screen. The initial recommendation to begin mammograms at age 40, made in 1983 by the American Cancer Society, was based on a documented rise in breast-cancer rates, not because of compelling data that mammograms were highly effective for the younger age group.
"We started telling our members in 1993 that there was good evidence that mammograms didn't work well for women in their 40s," says Pearson. "It took 16 years for another study to be done to verify that it doesn't work well for younger women. What women should be upset about is that we lost 16 years when we could have been looking for another screening tool for younger women."
But they're not. What the majority of women seem to be upset about is that what they believed was a lifeline could be taken away. Part of women's shock at the new recommendations, Pearson says, is that for years women have been misled into thinking that the evidence for mammography is better than it really is. While many women know someone who found a tumor through a self-exam, careful studies have shown that monthly exams do not reduce breast-cancer mortality rates. It's medically accepted that mammography only reduces breast-cancer mortality by 15 percent for women ages 40 to 49, while resulting in a very high rate of false positives, unnecessary biopsies, and anxiety in women whose cancers are so slow-growing or so inconsequential that they'd never become a threat. Mammograms, like X-rays, also expose patients to radiation, so the risks must be weighed against the benefits, particularly for younger asymptomatic women with no family history of the disease.
Dr. Karla Kerlikowske, director of the Women's Veteran's Comprehensive Health Center at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the publication of the new guidelines in the Annals of Internal Medicine, says she's stunned at the negative reaction to the new guidelines. "The real problem is that mammography has been oversold as this great thing, when in reality, it's only a moderately accurate thing, not nearly as effective as something like Pap smears are in detecting cervical cancer," she says, noting that younger women would be better served by reducing their alcohol intake, exercising more, and maintaining a healthy weight than by getting a mammogram.
Not all doctors agree. Largely outside the public view, expert panels have been arguing for years about whether to raise the mammography age to 50. "What we see is a continuum across the age group. As women get older, the benefits of mammography get better and the harm gets less," says Dr. Heidi Nelson, who conducted the meta-analysis of breast-cancer studies that led to the new recommendations. "Where you [draw] that [cutoff] line is a hard one to interpret." The American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology have steadfastly insisted that the benefits outweigh the risks for 40-year-olds, while the American College of Physicians and the National Women's Health Network have been among the most outspoken critics. Without a clear consensus among the experts, the public message remained the same: start getting mammograms between age 40 and 50.
Despite the new guidelines, consensus remains elusive, and that's increasing the confusion level by the hour. Within hours of the release, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and other groups issued position statements opposing the new recommendations. The American Cancer Society has been particularly vigorous in its defense of the status quo. Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the ACS, noting that 4,000 women a year die of breast cancer in their 40s, even accused the task force of undervaluing women's lives in an editorial in Thursday's Washington Post: "With its new recommendations, the task force is essentially telling women that mammography at ages 40 to 49 saves lives—just not enough of them to recommend that all women get screened." He also said that the task force relied too much on older studies, conducted before modern mammography's improvements.
The furor may also stem from frustration that women's health research has been underfunded for years. It is beyond distressing to many that despite all the pink ribbons and fundraising they've done over the last decades, breast cancer remains such a mystery and doctors have little to offer beyond mammography, which can detect cancerous tumors as well as precancerous cells but often can't provide doctors with the kind of information they need to determine when to intervene and when to watch and wait.
One thing all the experts agree upon is that the best decision for any individual woman is made in partnership with her doctor after reviewing her own health and cancer history. Women with a particularly high risk of cancer may decide with their doctor that early mammograms make sense, while women at low risk might choose to put off mammograms until they are older. No matter what they decide to do about mammograms, all women should continue to get annual doctor-administered breast exams as their first line of defense against the disease. Amy Allina of the National Women's Health Network says she hopes all women will use this news to press harder for researchers to find a new screening process that works effectively for them. "This is a frightening disease, and women do not want to be told that there is nothing they can do to protect themselves," Allina says. "We have to demand that a new tool be developed."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/223696/page/1
The best thing about this expose is that there are other technologies for diagnosing breast cancer that have been in development for years, but because of the overwhelming "popularity" of mammography and the huge investments that have been made in the equipment and the promotion for it, it was unlikely one of those would actually be funded for approval and marketing. Maybe now we will get a better technology for breast tumor diagnosis.
-FW
The Myth of the Mammogram
Why many American women are resolutely rejecting the new mammogram recommendations, despite mixed reaction in the medical community.
By Pat Wingert | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 20, 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/223696/page/1
Most adult women know a woman in her 40s who was diagnosed with breast cancer and died. So the news this week that mammograms and self–breast exams do little to protect women under 50 against breast cancer—and that doctors have nothing new to offer in their stead—felt like a real slap to women who have been diligently doing everything they were told to do to protect themselves. So perhaps that's why, despite the fact that an expert panel insists that its recommendations are designed to reduce young women's exposure to radiation and unnecessary biopsies, and despite strong evidence supporting new guidelines, many women across the country have been rallying against the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, demanding that access to mammograms for women under 50 continue.
In many respects, the sense of betrayal rivals the news back in 2002 that hormone therapy—long pushed by doctors as a way for women to keep their aging hearts strong, despite a lack of strong evidence—turned out to increase the risk of heart disease, breast cancer, stroke, and blood clots. When conventional wisdom about sensitive health issues is turned on its head seemingly overnight, is there any surprise that women are upset and angry?
"We spent 20 years telling women to be afraid, be very afraid, of breast cancer, and that they could save their lives through early detection," says Cindy Pearson, executive director of the National Women’s Health Network. But in fact, the evidence has been mounting since 1992, when a Canadian National Breast Cancer Study concluded that mammograms had no effect on mortality for premenopausal women 40 to 50 years old. Scientists have long known that mammography becomes more effective after menopause; as estrogen and progesterone levels drop, the breast becomes less dense and easier to screen. The initial recommendation to begin mammograms at age 40, made in 1983 by the American Cancer Society, was based on a documented rise in breast-cancer rates, not because of compelling data that mammograms were highly effective for the younger age group.
"We started telling our members in 1993 that there was good evidence that mammograms didn't work well for women in their 40s," says Pearson. "It took 16 years for another study to be done to verify that it doesn't work well for younger women. What women should be upset about is that we lost 16 years when we could have been looking for another screening tool for younger women."
But they're not. What the majority of women seem to be upset about is that what they believed was a lifeline could be taken away. Part of women's shock at the new recommendations, Pearson says, is that for years women have been misled into thinking that the evidence for mammography is better than it really is. While many women know someone who found a tumor through a self-exam, careful studies have shown that monthly exams do not reduce breast-cancer mortality rates. It's medically accepted that mammography only reduces breast-cancer mortality by 15 percent for women ages 40 to 49, while resulting in a very high rate of false positives, unnecessary biopsies, and anxiety in women whose cancers are so slow-growing or so inconsequential that they'd never become a threat. Mammograms, like X-rays, also expose patients to radiation, so the risks must be weighed against the benefits, particularly for younger asymptomatic women with no family history of the disease.
Dr. Karla Kerlikowske, director of the Women's Veteran's Comprehensive Health Center at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the publication of the new guidelines in the Annals of Internal Medicine, says she's stunned at the negative reaction to the new guidelines. "The real problem is that mammography has been oversold as this great thing, when in reality, it's only a moderately accurate thing, not nearly as effective as something like Pap smears are in detecting cervical cancer," she says, noting that younger women would be better served by reducing their alcohol intake, exercising more, and maintaining a healthy weight than by getting a mammogram.
Not all doctors agree. Largely outside the public view, expert panels have been arguing for years about whether to raise the mammography age to 50. "What we see is a continuum across the age group. As women get older, the benefits of mammography get better and the harm gets less," says Dr. Heidi Nelson, who conducted the meta-analysis of breast-cancer studies that led to the new recommendations. "Where you [draw] that [cutoff] line is a hard one to interpret." The American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology have steadfastly insisted that the benefits outweigh the risks for 40-year-olds, while the American College of Physicians and the National Women's Health Network have been among the most outspoken critics. Without a clear consensus among the experts, the public message remained the same: start getting mammograms between age 40 and 50.
Despite the new guidelines, consensus remains elusive, and that's increasing the confusion level by the hour. Within hours of the release, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and other groups issued position statements opposing the new recommendations. The American Cancer Society has been particularly vigorous in its defense of the status quo. Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the ACS, noting that 4,000 women a year die of breast cancer in their 40s, even accused the task force of undervaluing women's lives in an editorial in Thursday's Washington Post: "With its new recommendations, the task force is essentially telling women that mammography at ages 40 to 49 saves lives—just not enough of them to recommend that all women get screened." He also said that the task force relied too much on older studies, conducted before modern mammography's improvements.
The furor may also stem from frustration that women's health research has been underfunded for years. It is beyond distressing to many that despite all the pink ribbons and fundraising they've done over the last decades, breast cancer remains such a mystery and doctors have little to offer beyond mammography, which can detect cancerous tumors as well as precancerous cells but often can't provide doctors with the kind of information they need to determine when to intervene and when to watch and wait.
One thing all the experts agree upon is that the best decision for any individual woman is made in partnership with her doctor after reviewing her own health and cancer history. Women with a particularly high risk of cancer may decide with their doctor that early mammograms make sense, while women at low risk might choose to put off mammograms until they are older. No matter what they decide to do about mammograms, all women should continue to get annual doctor-administered breast exams as their first line of defense against the disease. Amy Allina of the National Women's Health Network says she hopes all women will use this news to press harder for researchers to find a new screening process that works effectively for them. "This is a frightening disease, and women do not want to be told that there is nothing they can do to protect themselves," Allina says. "We have to demand that a new tool be developed."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/223696/page/1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
