"Top Woman at FDA Resigns over EC Delay"
Megan
the artcle from the Feminist Daily News Wire.
----
Feminist Daily News Wire
August 31, 2005
BREAKING NEWS: Top Woman at FDA Resigns over EC Delay
Susan Wood, PhD, the top woman at the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), announced her resignation today because of the continued FDA
delay on over-the-counter status for emergency contraception (EC). In a
letter announcing her resignation, Wood, who was the Assistant
Commissioner for Women’s Health and Director of the FDA Office of
Women’s Health, wrote, “The recent decision announced by the
Commissioner about emergency contraception, which continues to limit
women's access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and
reduce abortions is contrary to my core commitment to improving and
advancing women's health.”
“I have spent the last 15 years working to ensure that science informs
good health policy decisions. I can no longer serve as staff when
scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for
approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled,” Wood wrote.
“I am sad to see such a champion for women’s health leave the FDA, but I
understand the frustration she must feel as the FDA is shockingly
placing ideology and politics above science and medicine,” said Eleanor
Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “The FDA’s stall
tactics on EC are only harming women and increasing the need for abortions.”
-----
My question is, and obviously this is theoretical and NOT meant to be
judgmental, should she have resigned?
I highly doubt that a woman with a PhD who has spent 15 years on women's
health issues will just fade into the darkness. In fact, I'm hoping this
will just lead to her being a more outspoken advocate for women's health
issues. But, was there an issue of somebody "winning" here? Did she send
out a message that said "I won't tolerate your dirty politics and I
won't play those games with you" or did she effectively say "If you play
dirty games, the women give up." I guess some of it depends on what she
does afterwards, or does it?
The truth is, we all live in the system. There isn't a single day in
which any feminist, including bell hooks, doesn't use and manipulate the
system to her advantage. In other words, there is no "pure" feminist
(Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy RIchards put it quite well in their book,
"Grassroots: A Field Guide for Feminist Activism"). That is to say,
there is no one person who lives his or her life in a completely feminst
way without contributing in same way to the system against which
feminists are fighting. In the US, anyway. So, is it worth it to resign?
What is worse, what is better: to threaten to resign if things don't
change and then not resign; or to resign without warning; or to threaten
to resign and then do in fact resign when change doesn't happen?
or is this all useless theorizing and analyzing and should we be
spending this energy in fighting the proverbial "man"?
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Rick Merrill
The message is that this was the only way to express her outrage and
frustration. If so, then 'Yes' to your question.
> I highly doubt that a woman with a PhD who has spent 15 years on women's
> health issues will just fade into the darkness. In fact, I'm hoping this
> will just lead to her being a more outspoken advocate for women's health
> issues.
Let's hope so!
> But, was there an issue of somebody "winning" here? Did she send
> out a message that said "I won't tolerate your dirty politics and I
> won't play those games with you" or did she effectively say "If you play
> dirty games, the women give up." I guess some of it depends on what she
> does afterwards, or does it?
>
> The truth is, we all live in the system. There isn't a single day in
> which any feminist, including bell hooks,
"Bell hooks??? who, what???
> doesn't use and manipulate the
> system to her advantage. In other words, there is no "pure" feminist
> (Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy RIchards put it quite well in their book,
> "Grassroots: A Field Guide for Feminist Activism"). That is to say,
> there is no one person who lives his or her life in a completely feminst
> way without contributing in same way to the system against which
> feminists are fighting. In the US, anyway. So, is it worth it to resign?
>
Each MUST contribute to "the system" for it to survive and for it to
CHANGE! The degree of change one can achieve is often proportional to
the extent of one's contribution.
> What is worse, what is better: to threaten to resign if things don't
> change and then not resign; or to resign without warning; or to threaten
> to resign and then do in fact resign when change doesn't happen?
>
> or is this all useless theorizing and analyzing and should we be
> spending this energy in fighting the proverbial "man"?
>
Such generalized characterizations might alienate the enlightened men
who want to be co-defendants for your goals.
- a man
Chain
In my view, this woman in resigning has done little to further womens
rights. All Bush will do now is happily appoint a person who shares his
own value set....and not even have a token resistance to his agenda.
She has made his job far easier....but I guess she was so frustrated
she couldnt stay there, which I can understand.
Chain
Megan
> Megan wrote:
>
[snip]
>>But, was there an issue of somebody "winning" here? Did she send
>> out a message that said "I won't tolerate your dirty politics and I
>>won't play those games with you" or did she effectively say "If you play
>>dirty games, the women give up." I guess some of it depends on what she
>>does afterwards, or does it?
>>
>>The truth is, we all live in the system. There isn't a single day in
>>which any feminist, including bell hooks,
>
>
> "Bell hooks??? who, what???
bell hooks has been a major influence on feminism, especially 3rd wave
feiminism. She also does not capitalize her pseudonym (bell hooks). This
can confuse someone who is not familiar with her work because it is not
as recognizable as a name then.
>
>
>>doesn't use and manipulate the
>>system to her advantage. In other words, there is no "pure" feminist
>>(Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy RIchards put it quite well in their book,
>>"Grassroots: A Field Guide for Feminist Activism"). That is to say,
>>there is no one person who lives his or her life in a completely feminst
>>way without contributing in same way to the system against which
>>feminists are fighting. In the US, anyway. So, is it worth it to resign?
>>
>
>
> Each MUST contribute to "the system" for it to survive and for it to
> CHANGE! The degree of change one can achieve is often proportional to
> the extent of one's contribution.
This is a liberal theory. Radical feminists would argue that the system
is inherently flawed and must be replaced with a new one.
One must also consider the subsystems. Buying clothes made in sweat
shops contributes the sweat shop system of producing clothing. Buying
clothes which are not made in sweat shops contributes to the anti-sweat
shop system. Change is made by choosing which system to contribute to
and sticking with it, which is exactly what you're saying. In my case,
however, I was arguing against the system of patriarchy. I should have
been more clear about that.
Liberal feminists have been trying change patriarchy from the inside out
("Add women and stir") since Mary Wollstonecraft published "A
Vindication of the Rights of Women" in 1792. Change this way is slow and
it also makes a lot of women look like walking contradictions. But it is
the least confrontational type of change.
I was trying to make the point that there are very few women high in
rank in the FDA and Susan Wood's resignation means there are even fewer
now. So what kind of a message does it send? Was her message received
the way she wanted it to be received? Because I highly doubt that anyone
other than feminists are outraged that she has resigned. And, while I
would argue that the majority of people who don't identify themselves as
feminists really are feminists, self-identified feminists are quite in
the minority right now. It is the radical far right Evangelicals who are
in charge and I am quite sure they were not sad to see Susan Wood resign.
Sadly, unless she becomes activist some other way, I believe her message
will not be received.
>
>
>
>
>>What is worse, what is better: to threaten to resign if things don't
>>change and then not resign; or to resign without warning; or to threaten
>>to resign and then do in fact resign when change doesn't happen?
>>
>>or is this all useless theorizing and analyzing and should we be
>>spending this energy in fighting the proverbial "man"?
>>
>
>
> Such generalized characterizations might alienate the enlightened men
> who want to be co-defendants for your goals.
>
> - a man
I hate to be picky, but i didn't make a single "generalized
characterization" of anyone in that last sentence. I didn't attribute
any characterisitic to anyone (gender, sex, person or otherwise), nor
did I make a statement that was supposed to be used a describe a certain
group of people in its entirety. Next time, instead of "proverbial
'man'" (meaning, the commonly spoken of entity of the "man" who
suppsedly oppresses everyone, without respect to gender, race, class,
age, ability, etc.-- and note that "man" is surrounded by quotation
marks) I will say patriarchy (or capitalism, because capitalism is also
a "proverbial 'man'").
Sorry to get snippy, but I really see no reason for you to be defensive
over that last sentence.
-- a woman who doesn't think she should have had to explain herself just now
Dan Holzman
Megan <megan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>My question is, and obviously this is theoretical and NOT meant to be
>judgmental, should she have resigned?
I think that's only a call she can make.
>I highly doubt that a woman with a PhD who has spent 15 years on women's
>health issues will just fade into the darkness. In fact, I'm hoping this
>will just lead to her being a more outspoken advocate for women's health
>issues. But, was there an issue of somebody "winning" here? Did she send
> out a message that said "I won't tolerate your dirty politics and I
>won't play those games with you" or did she effectively say "If you play
>dirty games, the women give up." I guess some of it depends on what she
>does afterwards, or does it?
I think her resignation sends a different message. She is saying,
"I will not legitimize the replacement of science with politics by
lending my name to it." I agree with you that she's not going to fade
into the darkness. The fact that she's going to put her energy
someplace legitimate instead underscores that she isn't giving up a
damn thing.
>What is worse, what is better: to threaten to resign if things don't
>change and then not resign; or to resign without warning; or to threaten
>to resign and then do in fact resign when change doesn't happen?
It's worst to threaten to resign and not follow through, because once
that's happened, everyone knows you have no power. Whether someone
should give warning before resignation depends, I think, on the
specific situation. Sometimes, all warning will do is give someone
the opportunity to delegitimize you before you resign.
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
. . . . .
or is this all useless theorizing and analyzing and should we be
spending this energy in fighting the proverbial "man"?
* * * * *
Theoretical development is a hard job, but someone's got to have the
fun.
Sound theory carries me well forward. Without it, I'd probably drop out
quicker, because the countervailing pressures would be harder to
justify taking. The point of absorbing them wouldn't be clear, but the
fact of opposition would be. Having a larger view is sustenance. Theory
is one source of a larger view.
On the final word being misunderstood, I laughed out loud. The news
that "the enlightened men . . . want to be co-defendants for your
goals" when ". . . co-defenders . . ." was probably meant was as good a
Freudian slip as I've met in ages. Men get so consistently touchy about
being in the class of wrongdoers that feminists are required to issue
certificates of exemption to just about every man ever to cross a
street. I'd like to meet a voluntary co-defendant; I'm not brave enough
to be quite that, and I can use the inspiration.
Your key query:
* * * * *
. . . should she have resigned?
* * * * *
I'm not in her shoes; I don't know. Whether she'll be stronger as an
outside advocate or she just wants to do something else and feminists
won't hear from her again, I can't tell (I haven't followed the news
enough). We can hope. And also we can encourage others to come forward.
I usually find it impractical, because nearly impossible, to chart my
course according to what will impress people I hardly know, which is
almost everyone. Trying that lets them confuse me. I'm more efficacious
doing what I think is best even if enemies gloat. Some people will
never get it and I can't sit patiently trying to coach them if they
won't attend to what we're telling them, because waiting until the
unhearing mend their ways (but don't mend) means the unhearing win, by
keeping us from our self-appointed rounds.
What may be rare here is resigning with a public statement of why, and
not because of family reasons or to follow other opportunities or some
such boilerplate.
I compromise uncomfortably all the time. Using English is a compromise
with chauvinism; I suspect most sentences published in most places have
at least one chauvinist etymology apiece. I resent the choices I have
to make, and language sometimes seems to be the least of them (although
it isn't).
But one's own premature defeat makes visiting defeat upon the enemy
badly in need of vanquishment unattainable. Strategy is (perhaps) a
chain of compromises glued with inevitable angst.
You observed:
* * * * *
. . . . In other words, there is no "pure" feminist (Jennifer
Baumgardner and Amy RIchards put it quite well in their book,
"Grassroots: A Field Guide for Feminist Activism").
* * * * *
I read it (without having read Manifesta, which is in my stack to be
read) and found so-numbered third-wave feminism so limited (a sense I
also got from The Fire This Time): active, yes, and more connected with
other movements, and maybe the antifeminism blended in was more honest
because the boundaries on each activist's feminism were more openly
spoken, and I want them to do what they can, but I found it hard to
want to connect too closely lest I have to embrace the antifeminist
pillars at the same time.
Compromise has many degrees well before simplistic absolutism; it's
hard for anyone else to distinguish the degrees, so we have to do it
ourselves. Our own counsel is our blood.
-- Nick