In a recent article,
Holly Griggs Spall observes that women on the Pill have many potential problems to deal with, including health concerns, problems with relationships, psychological
side-effects and more. She complains that a lack of feminism is the problem.
Why is it that we hear most about the side effects of the pill that directly impact men? It could be because science lacks feminism. … In science,
as in – one might say grandiosely – life, female hormones are seen as a hindrance.
Who the heck is Holly Griggs Spall, you might ask, and why am I only hearing about her just now? Before I answer that, I would like to suggest a different
answer to the question she poses. While I agree that society generally does see female hormones as a hindrance, I don’t believe women need more “feminism.”
What women really need is to contest the current understanding of “feminism.” In principle, “feminism” could mean any set of ideas and policies that promote
the betterment and interests of women. A “feminist” could be anyone who advocates or works for the improvement in the lives of women. Such an understanding
of feminism is broad enough to include all kinds of people, male or female. It could include men or women who
promote natural child-birth and nursing; women or men, who promote women’s participation in higher education; men or women, who work to prevent or alleviate
health hazards unique to women; women or men, who want to help women find husbands and remain happily married to them, and many other groups of people.
It could include John Paul II Feminists or Natural Earth Mother Goddess Feminists or lots of other people. Such an expansive understanding of “feminism”
could even include women like Holly Griggs Spall, who loudly challenge the reigning paradigm of blithely prescribing hormonal contraception to all and
sundry. But, as we well know, these people are not considered “feminists.” This is a very interesting state of affairs. It cries out for an
explanation. I submit that there is only type of pro-woman ideology that is allowed to call itself “feminism” without fear of contradiction. “Feminism”
supports female participation in the workplace on identical terms with men. Other kinds of pro-woman policies and philosophies: not so much. And why should
this particular pro-woman attitude receive Most Favored Philosophy status? I believe it is because the Managerial Class, including employers, benefit from
this particular form of feminism. Separating sex from reproduction means that employers need not be inconvenienced by worker turn-over generated by pregnancy.
Women workers who can work uninterrupted at their jobs for longer periods of time are more valuable to employers. The forms of feminism that have survived
and thrived, have been the ideas and policies that favor the interests of the Managerial Class. The kind of feminism that empowered careerism became dominant
over other forms of pro-woman thought. This is why Sandra Fluke is a household name, but you have never heard of Holly Griggs Spall. That is why Slate
Double XX (“What Women Really Think”) columnist Lindsey Beyerstein, savaged Ms.
Griggs Spall’s book. So, back to my opening question: Who the heck is Holly Griggs Spall and why am I only hearing about her just now? She is the author
of a Sweetening the Pill: or how we Got Hooked on Hormonal Birth Control. She
is not, so far as I know, a woman of faith, but is more to the hipster side of the social spectrum. She has written for such publications as Ms.,
the F-bomb and Bitch magazine. Sandra Fluke is an apologist mouth-piece for the Managerial Class. She gets invited to testify, to give
interviews, to run for political office. Holly Griggs Spall is subversive of the interests of the Managerial Class. And that is why you have never heard
of her until now.
