Everything Below the Waist (2019)

By Jennifer Block – 30 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary

A woman in California returns to the clinic where she had an IUD inserted, begging for its removal because she's become "a depressed walking zombie" in just three weeks. The clinician refuses, tells her to wait six months, asks what happens when she has an abortion—then finally, wordlessly, removes the device with an eye roll before leaving the room. In New Jersey, a woman nine centimeters dilated is threatened with "legal people" if she doesn't consent to a cesarean she doesn't need. In Minneapolis, a woman reporting post-hysterectomy symptoms of racing heart and elevated respiration is labeled anxious, secretly sedated through her IV, and discharged with antianxiety medication. These aren't outliers or bad apples in Jennifer Block's "Everything Below the Waist"—a book I came to through Conspiracy Sarah that every woman needs to read it—they're the system working exactly as designed. The system needs to feed. It's predatory. That is its nature. And while it consumes both men and women, it prefers women, finding in their bodies an inexhaustible source of pathology to treat, organs to remove, and natural processes to medicalize.

The numbers Block meticulously documents tell a story of industrial-scale predation: 600,000 hysterectomies annually, making it America's second most common surgery after cesareans. One-third of women have their uteruses removed by age 60, with 90 percent of these surgeries deemed avoidable by medical experts. The HERS Foundation tracked 5,000 women whose doctors recommended hysterectomy—after receiving second opinions and learning about alternatives, only 2 percent went through with the surgery. When Block traces how a Baltimore specialist admitted in 1975, "Some of us aren't making a living, so out comes a uterus or two each month to pay the rent," she's not uncovering ancient history but ongoing practice. This is what Robert Mendelsohn called "Male Practice"—not because all perpetrators are men, but because the entire medical system operates on a fundamentally predatory logic that views women's bodies as collections of billable problems. The female reproductive system alone generates tens of billions in surgical revenue annually, a harvest so profitable that questioning it threatens the entire economic structure of American gynecology.

Block's investigation reveals something darker than mere medical overreach—a system that has systematically erased female anatomy from medical texts, dismissed fertility awareness as "voodoo," and convinced women their bodies are defective machines requiring constant intervention. When the Feminist Women's Health Center discovered in 1976 that medical texts had minimized the clitoris to a "small erectile organ" while it actually extends throughout the pelvis in a complex internal structure, they weren't just correcting an anatomical error. They were exposing how medicine deliberately ignorant of female pleasure could casually cut through clitoral tissue during episiotomies, remove healthy ovaries as "prevention," and dismiss women's sexual dysfunction after hysterectomy as psychological. The same profession that spent nine hours reattaching John Wayne Bobbitt's severed penis treats women's organs as disposable. As Nora Coffey documents, hysterectomized women report not just physical destruction but loss of maternal feeling, personality changes, and a deadening of emotional response—what one woman described as losing "that glint in my eyes." The system doesn't just remove organs; it excises something essential to female humanity itself.

Block's evidence converges with what researchers like Mendelsohn and the HERS Foundation have documented for decades—this isn't failed medicine but medicine functioning perfectly according to its own predatory logic. The system that convinces 13-year-old girls they need daily synthetic hormones for acne is the same one that will remove their uteruses at 35 for fibroids that could be treated with progesterone, then profit from decades of managing the aftermath. When Coffey reveals that "the greatest number of hysterectomy scars are worn by the wives of doctors, second is nurses," she's showing us that proximity to medical knowledge offers no protection because knowledge isn't the issue—power is. Even when women explicitly refuse procedures, even when they're attorneys who modify consent forms, doctors remove their organs anyway, knowing courts will defend any violation as "reasonable physician standard." This pattern extends across all women's healthcare: mammograms that don't save lives but generate revenue, birth control that doubles suicide risk while being prescribed to teenagers, the transformation of menopause into a disease requiring lifelong pharmaceutical management. Each intervention creates cascading opportunities for more intervention, each prescription enables the next, each surgery justifies another. The predator doesn't just feed once—it creates dependent prey, women whose bodies have been so disrupted by "treatment" that they require constant medical management to function. This is the system working exactly as intended, extracting maximum value from female bodies across their entire lifespan, from the first birth control prescription to the final unnecessary surgery, leaving behind what one woman described as walking around with photos of herself before the surgery, trying to remember who she was "when I still had that glint in my eyes."

With thanks to Jennifer Block.

Everything Below the Waist: Why Health Care Needs a Feminist Revolution: Block, Jennifer

Deep Dive Conversation Library (Bonus for Paid Subscribers Only)

This deep dive is based on the book:

Discussion No.119:

23 insights and reflections from “Everything Below the Waist”

Thank you for your support.

Analogy

Imagine a magnificent garden that has evolved over millennia to produce extraordinary flowers, with intricate root systems that communicate underground, seasonal cycles that ensure regeneration, and a delicate balance of nutrients, moisture, and beneficial insects that maintain its health. Now imagine that instead of learning how this garden works - understanding its cycles, supporting its natural processes, and protecting it from genuine threats - the gardeners declare the garden fundamentally flawed. They spray it with chemicals to stop its seasonal changes, dig up plants that seem unruly, install artificial systems that override its natural water distribution, and then wonder why the garden becomes diseased, depleted, and unable to flourish.

This is what modern medicine has done to women's bodies. Rather than understanding and supporting the sophisticated systems of female physiology - the monthly hormonal symphonies that indicate health, the cervical fluid that carefully selects and nurtures sperm, the birth process that functions beautifully when undisturbed, the intricate anatomy designed for both pleasure and reproduction - medicine has declared these systems defective and in need of constant intervention. Just as the garden's problems multiply when its natural processes are suppressed, women experience cascading health issues when medicine overrides rather than supports their physiology. The solution isn't more aggressive intervention but understanding: learning to read the garden's signals, supporting its natural processes, and intervening only when truly necessary - practicing what Block calls "physiological justice."

The One-Minute Elevator Explanation

Modern women's healthcare treats female bodies like broken machines that need constant fixing rather than sophisticated systems that need understanding and support. Think about it: we remove more uteruses than any other organ, suppress our hormones from puberty through menopause, cut one-third of women open to deliver babies, and then wonder why women's health is declining. The medical system profits from intervention - a hysterectomy generates more revenue than teaching pelvic floor therapy, cesareans pay more than supporting natural birth, and prescribing pills is faster than investigating why periods hurt.

But here's what's revolutionary: women's bodies aren't the problem. The problem is a medical system built on controlling rather than understanding female physiology. When we actually support women's bodies - using fertility awareness instead of hormonal suppression, physical therapy instead of surgery, midwifery care instead of obstetric intervention - outcomes improve dramatically. We need what Jennifer Block calls "physiological justice": healthcare that respects the intelligence of female bodies rather than declaring war on them. This isn't about rejecting all medical technology - it's about using it appropriately instead of reflexively.

[Elevator dings]

Want to learn more? Look into fertility awareness methods, find pelvic floor physical therapists in your area, or research the midwifery model of care versus obstetric management.

12-Point Summary

1. The Systematic Violation of Women's Autonomy Women across America face routine violations of their basic right to make decisions about their own bodies within medical settings. From forced cesareans to refused IUD removals to dismissed symptoms labeled as anxiety, the medical system regularly overrides women's clearly stated preferences and experiences. This isn't about isolated bad actors but systemic patterns where medical professionals believe their authority supersedes women's constitutional rights to refuse treatment. Courts inappropriately support these violations, creating a reality where pregnant women have fewer bodily rights than corpses. This fundamental disrespect for women's autonomy underlies every other dysfunction in women's healthcare.

2. The Hidden Epidemic of Unnecessary Hysterectomies America removes more uteruses than any other major organ, with one-third of women having hysterectomies by age 60, 90 percent for benign conditions with alternative treatments. These surgeries carry serious risks including sexual dysfunction, organ prolapse, depression, and increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease - risks that persist even when ovaries are preserved. The epidemic stems from inadequate surgical training that leaves gynecologists comfortable only with hysterectomy, financial incentives favoring surgery over conservative treatment, and cultural attitudes that view the uterus as disposable after childbearing. Black women face higher rates despite cultural preferences against the surgery, revealing how racial bias compounds medical harm.

3. The Manufactured Crisis of Cesarean Sections Cesarean rates have risen from 5 percent to 32 percent without improving outcomes, instead creating new causes of maternal death through placenta accreta and surgical complications. Hospital culture, not medical necessity, drives these rates - similar hospitals can have rates varying from 7 percent to 60 percent based solely on institutional practices and provider attitudes. The normalization of cesareans as just another way to give birth ignores their major surgery status and long-term consequences including future pregnancy complications, chronic pain, and difficulty bonding. Reform efforts prove that changing hospital protocols dramatically reduces cesareans while improving outcomes, but resistance remains strong from institutions profiting from surgical intervention.

4. The Suppression of Female Sexual Anatomy Medical texts have systematically minimized or erased accurate female sexual anatomy, particularly the clitoris, which extends far beyond the visible nub in a complex internal structure. The full clitoris wasn't accurately depicted in medical texts until feminist activists documented it in the 1970s, and even today most medical education ignores this anatomy. This erasure has profound implications: episiotomies cut through clitoral tissue, surgical procedures damage sexual function, and women lack basic knowledge about their own pleasure anatomy. The medical system's discomfort with female sexuality manifests in ignorance that directly harms women's sexual health and satisfaction.

5. The Dismissal of Fertility Awareness as Birth Control Modern fertility awareness methods achieve 95-99.6 percent effectiveness through identifying fertile days via cervical fluid, temperature, and other observable signs, yet medicine dismisses them as unreliable. This dismissal stems from association with Catholicism, lack of provider training, financial incentives favoring pharmaceutical methods, and ideological resistance to trusting women with their own fertility. Women are routinely pushed onto hormonal contraception with serious side effects rather than taught body literacy that would allow informed choice. The rejection of fertility awareness exemplifies medicine's preference for controlling women's bodies through technology rather than supporting their natural functions.

6. The False Promise of Egg Freezing Egg freezing is marketed as "fertility insurance" allowing women to delay childbearing for careers, but success rates are devastatingly low - a 30-year-old woman has only 13 percent chance of a live birth from ten frozen eggs. Companies use misleading statistics, emphasizing fertilization rates rather than live births, while charging $10,000-15,000 per cycle plus storage. The technology offers false security to women who may face crushing disappointment later, while serving corporate interests by appearing to solve work-life balance without requiring structural change. This exemplifies how medical technology gets sold as liberation while actually accommodating systemic inequities at women's bodily expense.

7. The Pharmaceutical Capture of Women's Health Advocacy Major women's health organizations have been systematically captured by pharmaceutical funding, producing content that invariably leads to drug solutions while maintaining nonprofit facades. Groups like HealthyWomen and the Society for Women's Health Research began with genuine advocacy goals but now function as marketing arms for drug companies. The "Even the Score" campaign revealed how pharmaceutical companies orchestrate fake grassroots movements, paying feminist organizations to pressure FDA approval for marginally effective drugs. This capture means women seeking trustworthy health information from feminist sources receive industry marketing disguised as empowerment, corrupting the entire advocacy landscape.

8. The Profit-Driven Overtreatment Epidemic Women receive more medical interventions than men despite being healthier, with routine procedures lacking evidence of benefit persisting because they generate revenue. Annual pelvic exams continue despite proving useless for asymptomatic women, robotic surgeries are marketed aggressively despite worse outcomes, and osteoporosis screening was manufactured to sell drugs. Financial incentives drive cascading interventions - hospitals profit from cesareans, surgeons from hysterectomies, drug companies from lifetime hormone suppression. The fee-for-service model rewards doing more rather than achieving health, with women's bodies becoming sites for profitable intervention regardless of medical necessity or patient benefit.

9. The Crisis in Gynecological Surgical Training Gynecologists receive drastically inadequate surgical training compared to other specialties, with only 20 percent of residency spent in surgery versus 80 percent for general surgeons. Many graduate having performed fewer than 200 surgeries total, leaving them incompetent in organ-preserving procedures and defaulting to hysterectomy. The specialty has evolved from surgical focus to primary care, with many practitioners performing surgeries they're unqualified for while lacking skills for alternatives. This training crisis perpetuates itself as unskilled attendings cannot teach advanced techniques, creating generations of gynecologists who can only offer removal rather than repair.

10. The Physical Embodiment of Trauma in Pelvic Pain Chronic pelvic pain often stems from muscular tension and trigger points created by physical and psychological trauma, yet medicine dismisses it as psychological or treats it with unnecessary surgery. Sexual assault, birth trauma, surgical adhesions, and chronic stress create protective tension patterns that manifest as debilitating pain throughout the pelvis. Physical therapy addressing these muscular and fascial restrictions successfully treats conditions medicine calls untreatable, but insurance rarely covers it. The connection between trauma and physical pain reveals how violence against women becomes literally embodied, requiring therapeutic approaches that address both physical and emotional components.

11. The Systematic Exclusion of Midwifery Care Countries with integrated midwifery care achieve better maternal outcomes with fewer interventions, yet America systematically excludes autonomous midwives from mainstream healthcare. Midwives' model of patience, support, and physiological birth produces lower cesarean rates, fewer complications, and higher satisfaction, but threatens hospital business models dependent on intervention. The medicalization of birth eliminated generations of embodied knowledge about supporting natural processes, replacing it with technological management that creates the complications it claims to prevent. Current reform efforts focus on doulas who lack medical authority rather than midwives who could actually change outcomes, revealing medicine's resistance to genuine power-sharing.

12. The Framework of Physiological Justice Block's concept of physiological justice demands healthcare that respects and supports female physiology rather than pathologizing and suppressing it. This means investigating root causes rather than masking symptoms, preserving organs rather than removing them, supporting natural processes rather than overriding them, and trusting women's bodily knowledge rather than dismissing their experiences. Physiological justice recognizes that aggressive medical intervention often creates more problems than it solves, and that women's sophisticated biological systems - from fertility to birth to menopause - function best when understood and supported rather than controlled. This framework offers a path toward healthcare that serves women's actual health rather than medical convenience or pharmaceutical profit.

The Golden Nugget

The most profound yet least known idea in the book is that the female reproductive system actively selects and nurtures specific sperm through sophisticated mechanisms that science has understood since the 1950s but culture continues to ignore. Contrary to the pervasive "race to the egg" narrative where millions of sperm compete and the fastest wins, only about 100 sperm out of hundreds of millions (0.0001%) complete the journey - not through competition but through female-controlled selection. The cervical fluid washes, filters, and guides chosen sperm, preserving them in crypts while rejecting others. The fallopian tubes further select and then spend hours or days "capacitating" these sperm - chemically maturing them to be able to fertilize. The fastest sperm are actually immature and incapable of fertilization. This means conception is not conquest but cooperation, with the female body making active choices at every stage. This scientific reality completely overturns cultural narratives about passive female biology and masculine competition, revealing that even at the cellular level, female agency has been erased from the story of human reproduction. Understanding this transforms how we think about fertility, contraception, and women's biological power.

30 Questions and Answers

Question 1: What examples of obstetric violence and denial of patient autonomy does Block present in the introduction?

Answer: Block opens with three powerful cases that illustrate systemic problems in women's healthcare. In California, a woman seeking IUD removal after experiencing severe depression is refused by her clinician, who dismisses her concerns and asks "what happens when you have an abortion?" - ultimately removing the device only after eye-rolling and leaving wordlessly. In New Jersey, a woman nine centimeters dilated and ready to push is told she needs a cesarean by an obstetrician who threatens to call "legal people" if she doesn't sign consent for surgery, despite having delivered vaginally before. In Minneapolis, a woman experiencing concerning post-hysterectomy symptoms including elevated heart rate is labeled with "anxiety," secretly administered Ativan through her IV, and discharged with antianxiety medication rather than proper investigation of her physical symptoms.

These cases demonstrate how medical professionals override women's bodily autonomy, dismiss their reported symptoms as psychological rather than physical, and use coercion or threats to force compliance with medical interventions. Block uses these examples to illustrate that despite decades of feminist advancement, women still face fundamental violations of their right to make decisions about their own bodies within the medical system.

Question 2: How did the feminist health movement of the 1970s differ in its approach to women's biology compared to mainstream feminism?

Answer: The 1970s feminist health movement, led by activists like Carol Downer, embraced biological difference and advocated for women to gain direct knowledge and control of their bodies through practices like cervical self-examination. These "self-helpers" believed that fluency over one's biology was fundamental to civil rights, promoting the use of speculums and creating spaces where women could learn about their anatomy together. They saw self-knowledge as liberating and challenged the medical system's pathologization of normal female functions. Their approach produced resources like "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and led to direct actions against harmful products like high-dose birth control pills and the Dalkon Shield.

Mainstream feminism, influenced by writers like Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan, viewed female biology as a source of oppression that needed to be transcended through medical technology. This camp saw the body as a prison and believed modern medicine could make women equal to men by controlling or negating biological functions. The conflict was immediate - when Downer attended her first NOW conference with speculums to share, they were barely given a table and forbidden from being too graphic. This philosophical divide had lasting implications, with mainstream feminism's embrace of medical technology sometimes preventing critical examination of harmful practices, while the self-help movement's emphasis on natural body knowledge was dismissed as essentialist or retrograde.

Question 3: What did Erik Odeblad discover about cervical fluid that contradicted accepted medical wisdom of the 1950s?

Answer: Erik Odeblad, a Swedish scientist with both medical and physics training, discovered that cervical fluid changes throughout the menstrual cycle were not simply varying dilutions of the same "mucus" as medicine believed, but distinctly different substances with crucial reproductive functions. Through nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and careful observation of 520 samples from 153 women, he identified that cervical fluid becomes clear and viscous at certain times, opaque and lotion-like at others, and sometimes barely present. These changes directly corresponded to ovulation and fertility windows, creating observable patterns women could use to identify their fertile days.

Most remarkably, Odeblad proved that fertile cervical fluid plays an active role in conception by washing sperm of seminal fluid, trapping misshapen or slow sperm, carrying ideal candidates up its molecular strands, and preserving selected sperm in cervical "crypts" with sugars and carbohydrates. About 70 percent of sperm don't make it past this sophisticated selection system. This research revealed that the female body actively guides and selects sperm at every stage, contradicting the passive vessel narrative of female reproduction. Despite the profound implications for natural fertility management, his work was largely ignored by mainstream medicine, which continued to dismiss fertility awareness as unreliable while promoting hormonal contraception.

Question 4: How does the biological reality of conception differ from common sports and military metaphors about sperm and eggs?

Answer: The biological reality reveals that conception involves sophisticated female-directed selection and cooperation rather than masculine competition. While popular metaphors describe millions of sperm racing to win the egg as a prize, only about 100 sperm out of hundreds of millions (.0001 percent) actually complete the journey - not through competition but through multiple female-controlled selection mechanisms. The cervical fluid actively filters, guides, and preserves chosen sperm. The fallopian tubes further reduce the population at their "velvet-rope entrance," then spend hours or days maturing the sperm through a process called capacitation, which changes their membranes to allow egg recognition.

Contrary to the "fastest swimmer wins" narrative, the quickest sperm are actually immature and cannot fertilize. The egg itself signals its arrival with progesterone that "hyperactivates" selected sperm, and only then do they become the Olympic swimmers of mythology. The female reproductive system is actively selecting, guiding, nurturing, and preparing sperm throughout the process - it's cooperation between sperm cells and the female body, not competition among sperm. Scientists have known about these active female mechanisms since the 1950s, yet the passive, conquest-based metaphors persist, reflecting cultural biases about gender rather than biological reality.

Question 5: What is "unexplained infertility" and why does Block argue this label is problematic?

Answer: "Unexplained infertility" is a diagnosis given to approximately 30 percent of couples seeking fertility treatment when no specific cause can be identified through standard testing - hormone levels appear normal, fallopian tubes are open, and sperm counts are adequate. Block argues this label is more of a prognostication than a true diagnosis, essentially meaning the couple hasn't conceived within the expected timeframe rather than identifying an actual medical problem. The diagnosis triggers aggressive interventions despite the absence of identified pathology, with couples pushed toward treatments like IUI and IVF that "shorten time to conception" rather than address specific medical issues.

The problematic nature of this label becomes clear through stories like Holly's, whose "unexplained" diagnosis led to multiple failed IUI cycles with serious side effects, only to later discover her husband's borderline sperm count might have been the issue all along. The fertility industry uses "unexplained infertility" to justify expensive interventions for what might be normal variations in conception timing, with doctors admitting they're "playing the numbers game" rather than treating sterility. Block suggests this reflects American medicine's bias toward doing something rather than allowing natural processes time to work, with the emotional distress of waiting used to justify interventions that may be unnecessary and carry their own risks.

Question 6: How do egg freezing companies market their services, and what are the actual success rates?

Answer: Egg freezing companies market their services through "parties" featuring champagne, macarons, and empowerment rhetoric about "taking control" of fertility and "leaning in" to careers. Companies like EggBanxx (later Carrot) use slogans like "Lean In & Freeze" and "Take Control of Your Timeline," presenting egg freezing as fertility insurance that allows women to delay childbearing without consequence. Marketing emphasizes liberation from biological clocks and promises of future fertility, with companies partnering with employers like Facebook and Apple to offer egg freezing as an employee benefit, framing it as supporting women's career advancement.

The actual success rates starkly contradict this optimistic marketing. For women who freeze eggs at 30, the chance of a single live birth is only 13 percent from ten eggs; at 40, it drops to 9 percent. Women under 38 need approximately 20 eggs for a 70 percent chance of one child, while women over 42 would need 61 eggs for the same odds. Each cycle typically yields 10-15 eggs and costs $10,000-15,000 plus annual storage fees. Studies show that of women who freeze eggs, only 9-24 percent ever return to use them, and of those who do, success rates are far lower than implied. Block reveals how marketing carefully avoids these statistics, instead using misleading metrics like fertilization rates rather than live birth rates, selling false security to women who may later face devastating disappointment.

Question 7: What did the Feminist Women's Health Center discover about clitoral anatomy that medical texts had ignored or minimized?

Answer: In 1976, the Feminist Women's Health Center team discovered that medical texts had systematically minimized or erased the true anatomy of the clitoris, depicting it as merely a small external nub when it's actually an extensive internal organ. Through examining historical dissections and conducting their own observations, they found the clitoris extends well beyond the visible glans in a bird-like form - the visible nub is just the "bird's head," while the body wraps around the vagina and wings extend back along the pubic bone. The team identified previously unnamed structures including the "urethral sponge" and "perineal sponge," and renamed the "bulbs of the vestibule" as "clitoral bulbs," showing how clitoral tissue extends into the labia.

Artist Suzann Gage created 33 detailed anatomical illustrations showing the clitoris from multiple angles, more than any other chapter in their book "A New View of a Woman's Body." They revealed approximately nine times more clitoral tissue than typically shown in medical texts, demonstrating that episiotomies actually cut through clitoral tissue - making them "mutilation of the clitoris" rather than simple surgical incisions. Despite this groundbreaking work clearly documenting female sexual anatomy, medical texts continued to minimize the clitoris as a "small erectile organ," and it wasn't until around 2010 that mainstream medical researchers "rediscovered" what these feminists had documented decades earlier.

Question 8: How does pelvic floor physical therapy address chronic pain that conventional medicine often dismisses or mistreats?

Answer: Pelvic floor physical therapy treats chronic pain by addressing muscular tension and trigger points in the complex weave of muscles, ligaments, and fascia that conventional medicine often overlooks or misdiagnoses. Physical therapists like Isa Herrera work internally through the vagina to release trigger points, massage tight muscles, and restore proper movement to organs that have become "stuck and tight." The therapy recognizes that pain in one area can originate from tension elsewhere in the connected pelvic structure - the entire belly sits in a peritoneal sac of connective tissue, allowing tension to transfer across regions, causing pain in the labia, vagina, bones, anus, or back.

This approach successfully treats conditions that conventional medicine often dismisses as psychological or treats with unnecessary surgeries. Women who've been told they have chronic UTIs, prescribed numbing creams for painful sex, or labeled with anxiety find relief through physical therapy that insurance rarely covers. The therapy addresses root causes including birth trauma, surgical adhesions, endometriosis, sexual assault trauma (which causes complete muscular "shutdown"), and even everyday stress that creates chronic tension. Block presents stories of women who suffered for years, seeing multiple doctors who offered only antidepressants or surgery, finally finding relief through physical therapy that treats the pelvic floor as an interconnected system rather than isolated symptoms.

Question 9: Why does Block argue that hysterectomy rates in America represent a crisis in women's healthcare?

Answer: Block argues that America's hysterectomy rates represent a crisis because the uterus is removed more than any other major organ despite most cases being elective rather than medically necessary. By age 60, one-third of American women have had hysterectomies, with 90 percent performed for benign conditions that have alternative treatments. The surgery carries serious risks including vaginal cuff dehiscence (separation), pelvic organ prolapse, sexual dysfunction, depression, and premature death from cardiovascular disease and other causes. Studies show women who keep their ovaries but lose their uterus still face increased mortality risk, challenging the notion that the uterus is disposable after childbearing.

The crisis extends beyond medical risks to systemic issues: gynecologists receive minimal training in alternative treatments, offering hysterectomy as a first-line solution for conditions like fibroids or heavy bleeding that could be managed otherwise. There are profound racial disparities, with Black women experiencing higher rates despite cultural preferences against the surgery. The casual attitude toward removing this organ - marketed as solving multiple problems at once - ignores its role in sexual response and overall health. Block connects this to historical medical paternalism, where the uterus is seen as troublesome rather than integral, and to inadequate surgical training that makes hysterectomy the procedure gynecologists are most comfortable performing.

Question 10: What training disparities exist between gynecological surgeons and other surgical specialties?

Answer: Gynecological surgeons receive dramatically less surgical training than other specialties, with OB-GYN residents getting only 20 percent of their training in surgery compared to 80 percent for general surgeons. While surgical residents may participate in over 1,000 procedures during training, OB-GYN residents might see only 100-200 surgeries, spending most of their time on obstetrics and primary care. This limited exposure means many gynecologists graduate without competence in complex procedures, defaulting to hysterectomy - the one surgery they've practiced most - rather than organ-preserving alternatives they've rarely performed.

The training deficit perpetuates itself as attending physicians who lack skills cannot teach advanced techniques to residents. Gynecology has evolved from a surgical specialty to essentially general practice, with surgeons spending most time on routine exams, contraceptive counseling, and obstetrics rather than maintaining surgical skills. Studies show 20 percent of practicing gynecologists haven't done a hysterectomy in the past year, yet when surgery is needed, these less-practiced surgeons still operate. Block reveals how "GYN exceptionalism" allows gynecologists to perform surgeries with complication rates that would end other surgeons' careers, protected by their specialty's culture and patients' assumption that their gynecologist is a qualified surgeon.

Question 11: How has the rise in cesarean sections contributed to maternal mortality through conditions like placenta accreta?

Answer: The rise in cesarean sections has created an epidemic of placenta accreta, where the placenta grows into or through uterine scar tissue from previous cesareans, causing catastrophic hemorrhage when it detaches during delivery. This condition, once occurring in 1 in 30,000 births, now affects 1 in 300, directly paralleling the increase in cesarean rates from 5 percent to 32 percent over recent decades. Placenta accreta has become a leading cause of maternal death through uncontrollable bleeding, often requiring emergency hysterectomy and massive blood transfusions. The risk compounds with each cesarean - while a first cesarean carries a 0.24 percent risk of accreta, this jumps to 2 percent after three cesareans and 6.74 percent after five.

Block reveals how the medical system created this crisis through normalizing cesareans without acknowledging long-term consequences. Doctors focused on immediate delivery outcomes ignored what one expert calls the "biggest complication of a primary C-section" - becoming a prior C-section with scarred uterus vulnerable to deadly complications in future pregnancies. The "cesarean epidemic" that began in the 1970s is now manifesting as a maternal mortality crisis decades later, as women with multiple cesareans face life-threatening placental complications. This exemplifies how interventions marketed as safe alternatives to vaginal birth have created new, preventable causes of maternal death.

Question 12: What role do hospital culture and financial incentives play in cesarean section rates?

Answer: Hospital culture is the primary driver of cesarean rates, which can vary ten-fold between institutions with similar patient populations. Hospitals operating as "labor-and-delivery machines" prioritize efficiency and scheduling over physiological birth processes, with financial incentives reinforcing intervention. Cesareans generate higher reimbursements than vaginal births, can be scheduled for convenience, reduce liability concerns, and move patients through quickly. Consumer Reports found some hospitals have cesarean rates near 60 percent while others maintain 7-8 percent, with the difference attributed to provider attitudes and institutional practices rather than patient characteristics.

The culture manifests in specific practices: hospitals that discourage vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC), lack midwives, or pressure women to accept interventions have higher surgical rates. Doctors admit they can "convince almost any woman in labor to have a C-section," using fear and authority to override patient preferences. Electronic fetal monitoring, required admission procedures, and restrictive labor policies create cascades of intervention leading to surgery. Hospitals with cultures supporting physiological birth - employing midwives, allowing movement during labor, supporting VBAC - achieve dramatically lower cesarean rates. Block shows how reform efforts focusing on "quality improvement" bundles have successfully reduced cesareans by changing institutional practices rather than blaming mothers for being "older, fatter, sicker."

Question 13: How have pharmaceutical companies captured women's health advocacy organizations?

Answer: Pharmaceutical companies have systematically captured women's health organizations through funding that appears as partnership but functions as marketing. Organizations like HealthyWomen, presenting itself as the "nation's leading independent health information source for women," produce content traceable to drug manufacturers - Amgen sponsors migraine articles, AbbVie funds endometriosis content, Radius Health drives osteoporosis awareness campaigns. These groups maintain nonprofit status and feminist rhetoric while promoting industry agendas, with boards populated by pharmaceutical executives and content that consistently leads to drug solutions.

The capture extends to respected organizations founded with genuine advocacy goals. The Society for Women's Health Research, created to address women's exclusion from medical research, transformed under corporate influence from pushing for NIH reform to promoting industry interests. Professional societies like the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health accept "platinum" sponsorships from drug companies whose products they then endorse. Block reveals how the "Even the Score" campaign for "female Viagra" appeared grassroots but was orchestrated and funded by Sprout Pharmaceuticals, with 26 organizations signing on after receiving contributions. This systemic capture means women seeking health information from seemingly trustworthy feminist sources receive industry marketing disguised as empowerment.

Question 14: What was the "Even the Score" campaign and how was it connected to the drug Addyi?

Answer: "Even the Score" presented itself as a grassroots feminist campaign demanding FDA approval for female sexual dysfunction drugs to achieve "gender equity" with Viagra, but was actually created and funded by Sprout Pharmaceuticals to push approval of their drug Addyi (flibanserin). The campaign recruited 26 women's organizations through financial contributions, mobilizing them to pressure the FDA with arguments about sexism rather than drug efficacy. These groups testified at FDA hearings that rejecting Addyi represented discrimination, with the National Organization for Women claiming the FDA was "sexist" for denying women treatment options men had enjoyed for decades.

The campaign succeeded in getting Addyi approved despite clinical trials showing marginal benefits - women experienced maybe one additional satisfying sexual event per month while taking daily medication with serious side effects including fainting, dizziness, and when combined with alcohol, unconsciousness. The drug functions essentially like a date-rape drug, requires daily use, and helps only 8-13 percent of women who try it. Block exposes how Sprout manufactured feminist outrage to overcome scientific objections, with the campaign's messaging about "choice" and "equity" obscuring that Addyi had failed FDA review twice for lack of efficacy. The pharmaceutical company sold for $1 billion immediately after approval, revealing the campaign's true purpose as profit, not feminism.

Question 15: How did the marketing of osteoporosis screening serve pharmaceutical interests rather than women's health?

Answer: Merck created a "marketing juggernaut" for osteoporosis screening to sell its drug Fosamax by first creating the disease category of "osteopenia" (pre-osteoporosis) and then ensuring women could be diagnosed with it. When Fosamax launched, there were only 750 bone-density measuring devices in America and no easy way for doctors to test patients. Merck pushed manufacturers to create portable machines and established the Bone Measurement Institute, a nonprofit subsidiary promoting screening. Within four years, there were 8,000-10,000 machines nationwide. The campaign targeted not just elderly women with osteoporosis but "40 million postmenopausal women in America," creating a vast new market for treatment.

The screening push created a cascade of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, with healthy women labeled as having "osteopenia" based on arbitrary thresholds and prescribed bone drugs with serious side effects including jaw necrosis and atypical femur fractures. Women's health organizations promoted screening through luncheons where attendees received free bone density tests, spreading awareness of this newly created "pre-disease." Block shows how osteoporosis screening exemplifies disease-mongering - using women's health advocacy groups to promote tests that lead to drug prescriptions rather than genuine prevention, transforming normal aging into a profitable medical condition requiring pharmaceutical intervention.

Question 16: What parallels does Block draw between historical plant-based abortion methods and the modern abortion underground?

Answer: Block traces how abortion methods shifted from plant-based remedies controlled by women and midwives to surgical procedures controlled by male physicians, paralleling the criminalization of abortion. Historically, women used herbs like pennyroyal, tansy, rue, and artemisia to "bring on the courses," with this knowledge passed through generations until persecution during witch trials and medical professionalization deliberately excluded it. The criminalization of abortion in the 1800s coincided with the introduction of surgical instruments, moving abortion from women's knowledge to medical control. Even after legalization, abortion remained medicalized rather than returning to women's hands.

Today's abortion underground mirrors historical practices as women reclaim control through misoprostol, abortion pills, and menstrual extraction, sharing information through networks reminiscent of pre-Roe organizing. Women are creating alternatives to clinical abortion through self-help groups, crossing borders for medications, and training midwives in abortion care. Block argues this represents women's response to increasingly restricted clinical access - just as historical plant knowledge survived despite persecution, modern women are developing autonomous methods outside medical control. The parallel extends to legal persecution, with women facing prosecution for self-managed abortion just as midwives faced inquisitions for their plant knowledge.

Question 17: How does fertility awareness-based contraception work and why has it been dismissed by mainstream medicine?

Answer: Fertility awareness-based methods (FAM) work by identifying the fertile window through observable body signs - cervical fluid changes, basal body temperature shifts, and cervical position changes that indicate ovulation. Women chart these signs to identify their approximately six fertile days per cycle, using barrier methods or abstaining during this window. Modern symptothermal methods achieve 99.6 percent effectiveness with perfect use, comparable to the Pill, while simpler mucus-only methods reach 95-97 percent effectiveness. The methods require women to learn their unique patterns but provide information about overall health and involve no side effects.

Mainstream medicine dismisses FAM for interconnected ideological and practical reasons. The association with the Catholic Church and natural family planning creates skepticism among secular providers and feminists who view it as regressive. Medical training emphasizes pharmaceutical interventions over body literacy, with providers receiving minimal education about fertility signs. There's financial incentive to prescribe profitable medications rather than teach observation skills. Many providers conflate modern FAM with the ineffective rhythm method, believing all fertility awareness is unreliable. Block argues the dismissal reflects deeper discomfort with women's autonomy and bodies - FAM requires trusting women to observe and interpret their own fertility rather than controlling it through medical technology.

Question 18: What criticisms does Block level against hormonal contraception that have been controversial within feminism?

Answer: Block criticizes hormonal contraception for causing widespread side effects including depression, anxiety, blood clots, strokes, and sexual dysfunction that are minimized or dismissed by providers and feminist organizations. She documents how the Pill suppresses natural hormone cycles that provide health benefits beyond fertility, potentially affecting bone density, muscle mass, and psychological wellbeing. Through stories of women experiencing "Stockholm Syndrome" with the Pill - knowing it harms them but feeling unable to stop - she argues hormonal contraception is often presented as the only responsible choice rather than one option among many.

These criticisms prove controversial because hormonal contraception is symbolically tied to women's liberation and sexual freedom. Feminists who question the Pill face accusations of being anti-choice, anti-science, or aligned with religious conservatives. Block shows how writers like Holly Grigg-Spall and Laura Eldridge were branded as "fetishizing the natural" and trying to "scare women" for discussing documented risks. The controversy reflects feminism's complicated relationship with medical technology - critiquing the Pill seems to threaten hard-won reproductive autonomy. Block argues this defensive stance prevents honest discussion about contraceptive side effects and alternatives, ultimately limiting rather than expanding women's choices by making hormonal methods seem mandatory for feminist credibility.

Question 19: How do racial and class disparities manifest in women's healthcare outcomes?

Answer: Racial disparities permeate every aspect of women's healthcare, with Black women experiencing three to four times higher maternal mortality rates than white women regardless of income or education level. Black women have higher hysterectomy rates despite preferring to avoid the surgery, receive less pain management during labor, and experience more obstetric violence and coercion. The "weathering effect" means Black women's bodies age faster due to chronic stress from racism, affecting reproductive health across the lifespan. Block shows how Serena Williams nearly died from childbirth complications when medical staff dismissed her concerns about blood clots, illustrating how even wealthy, famous Black women face deadly medical racism.

Class disparities compound these inequities, with Medicaid patients receiving different care than privately insured women. Poor women are pushed toward long-acting contraceptives they cannot remove themselves, experience higher cesarean rates, and have less access to alternative treatments for conditions like fibroids or pelvic pain. Rural women face provider shortages and hospital closures, forcing long travels for basic care. Insurance structures mandate ineffective treatments before covering effective ones, wasting precious time for older women seeking fertility treatment. Block reveals how the system's discrimination isn't just about access but about quality - poor women and women of color receive more aggressive interventions with less respect for their autonomy and preferences.

Question 20: What is "physiological justice" and how does it differ from current approaches to women's health?

Answer: Physiological justice is Block's framework for healthcare that respects and supports female physiology rather than pathologizing or suppressing it. This approach recognizes that women's bodies have sophisticated systems - from cervical fluid that selects sperm to hormonal cycles that indicate health to birth physiology that functions best undisturbed - which should be understood and supported rather than overridden. Physiological justice demands healthcare that addresses root causes of symptoms rather than masking them with drugs, preserves organs rather than removing them, and trusts women's bodily knowledge rather than dismissing their experiences.

This differs radically from current approaches that treat female physiology as inherently defective, requiring constant medical management. Instead of suppressing periods with hormones, physiological justice would investigate why periods are painful. Rather than defaulting to hysterectomy, it would treat underlying conditions. Instead of cesareans for convenience, it would support physiological birth. Block argues this isn't about romanticizing "the natural" but about recognizing that aggressive medical intervention often creates more problems than it solves. Physiological justice encompasses both the right to necessary medical care and the right to be free from unnecessary intervention, placing women's long-term health and autonomy at the center rather than medical convenience or pharmaceutical profit.

Question 21: How did the transition from midwifery to medical obstetrics change childbirth practices?

Answer: The transition from midwifery to medical obstetrics transformed childbirth from a physiological event supported by experienced women to a pathological condition requiring medical management. Midwives historically used patience, positioning, massage, and herbal remedies, attending births in homes where women could move freely and labor in familiar surroundings. As male physicians took over childbirth in the late 1800s and early 1900s, they brought interventions like forceps, twilight sleep, and routine episiotomies, moving birth into hospitals where women labored flat on their backs for physician convenience.

This medicalization introduced cascading interventions that disrupted natural birth physiology - electronic monitoring restricted movement, epidurals slowed labor, artificial time limits led to augmentation or surgery. Practices that midwives knew were harmful, like immediate cord clamping and mother-baby separation, became routine. The shift eliminated generations of embodied knowledge about supporting physiological birth, replacing it with technological management that often created the complications it claimed to prevent. Block shows how countries maintaining strong midwifery have better outcomes with fewer interventions, while the American system's systematic exclusion of autonomous midwives correlates with rising maternal mortality and morbidity.

Question 22: What role do doulas play in the current maternity care system and what are their limitations?

Answer: Doulas provide continuous emotional and physical support during labor, acting as advocates and comfort-providers who improve birth outcomes - reducing cesareans by 28 percent, shortening labor, and increasing satisfaction. They fill a crucial gap in hospital care where nurses are overwhelmed and doctors appear only for delivery, offering the continuous presence that laboring women need. Doulas help women navigate hospital systems, resist unnecessary interventions, and maintain confidence in their body's ability to give birth. Their presence can buffer against obstetric violence by witnessing and documenting mistreatment.

However, Block reveals doulas' fundamental limitations within the medical hierarchy. They have no medical authority and cannot actually prevent interventions, only support women through them. Hospitals can ban doulas who advocate too strongly, and many restrict their role to comfort measures only. Doulas become "shock absorbers" for a dysfunctional system rather than agents of change, potentially enabling hospitals to continue harmful practices by making them more bearable. Their presence can be used to claim hospitals support "natural birth" without changing underlying practices. Block argues that while doulas provide valuable support, celebrating them as the solution to maternity care problems obscures the need for systemic reform that would give midwives actual authority and change hospital culture.

Question 23: How has robotic surgery been marketed to women despite evidence questioning its benefits?

Answer: Robotic surgery, particularly the da Vinci system, has been aggressively marketed to women as "minimally invasive" and superior to traditional surgery despite evidence showing no better outcomes and potentially more complications. Hospitals advertise robotic hysterectomy with futuristic imagery and promises of tiny incisions, faster recovery, and less pain, hosting "pink parties" and mall demonstrations targeting women. Marketing emphasizes technological sophistication and surgeon expertise while downplaying that residents often perform procedures with minimal supervision and the robot creates new risks including longer surgery times and potential organ damage from positioning.

Studies found robotic hysterectomy has similar or worse outcomes than standard laparoscopic surgery while costing thousands more and taking longer. The technology designed for prostate surgery doesn't account for female pelvic anatomy, yet gynecologists adopted it enthusiastically. Block reveals how hospitals invest millions in robotic systems then pressure surgeons to use them for return on investment, with surgeons promoting the technology through financial relationships with manufacturers. Women report severe complications including organ perforation and nerve damage from robotic procedures marketed as safer. The robotic surgery phenomenon exemplifies how technological innovation gets applied to women's bodies based on marketing rather than evidence, with women bearing the risks of unproven interventions.

Question 24: What connections does Block make between sexual trauma and chronic pelvic pain?

Answer: Block reveals direct connections between sexual trauma and chronic pelvic pain through both physical and psychological mechanisms. Physical therapists report that sexual trauma survivors exhibit complete pelvic floor "shutdown" - muscles squeeze down and tighten as protection against future violation. This chronic tension creates trigger points, nerve compression, and referred pain throughout the pelvis. The trauma can be recent or decades old, with the body holding protective tension patterns long after danger passes. Psychological trauma affects the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, altering how the nervous system processes pain signals and creating hypersensitivity.

The connection extends beyond individual assault to cultural conditions where women experience a "lack of sensation of safety" from pervasive harassment and violation. Physical therapists observe that many women with pelvic pain have no specific trauma but live with chronic guardedness from navigating threatening environments. Treatment requires addressing both physical and emotional components - releasing muscular tension while processing trauma in safe therapeutic relationships. Block argues that dismissing women's pelvic pain as psychological misses how psychological trauma creates real physical dysfunction, and that healing requires recognizing how violence against women literally becomes embodied as chronic pain.

Question 25: How do routine pelvic examinations exemplify the problem of overtreatment in women's healthcare?

Answer: Routine pelvic examinations on asymptomatic women provide no proven health benefits yet remain standard practice, exemplifying medicine's tendency to subject women to unnecessary interventions. Studies show these exams don't detect ovarian cancer early, don't improve outcomes for any condition, and can cause harm through false positives leading to surgeries and anxiety. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routine pelvic exams in 2016, finding no evidence they reduce morbidity or mortality, yet many gynecologists continue performing them, with professional organizations defending the practice despite evidence.

Block reveals disturbing practices around pelvic exams, including medical students performing them on anesthetized women without consent for training purposes - one study found 90 percent of students had done this. The exams' persistence despite lack of benefit reflects multiple problematic dynamics: financial incentives (exams generate billing), paternalistic beliefs that women need regular surveillance, and the historical view of female bodies as requiring medical management. Women report finding exams reassuring despite their uselessness, showing how medical culture has convinced women to accept and even desire unnecessary interventions. The routine pelvic exam represents broader patterns where tradition, profit, and control override evidence in women's healthcare.

Question 26: What was menstrual extraction and how did it function as both health tool and political act?

Answer: Menstrual extraction was a technique developed by feminist activists in 1971 where women used a simple device called the Del-Em to suction out menstrual blood all at once, shortening periods to minutes rather than days. Created by Carol Downer and Lorraine Rothman, the practice involved women learning to perform the procedure on each other in self-help groups, taking control of their reproductive functions outside medical supervision. While marketed as menstrual management, the technique also functioned as early abortion, allowing women to "extract" pregnancies before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and in communities where access remained restricted.

The practice represented radical bodily autonomy - women controlling their own fertility without medical intermediaries, pharmaceutical products, or state permission. Self-help groups taught women to perform extractions on each other, building networks of reproductive knowledge and mutual aid. This challenged both medical authority and legal restrictions, asserting that women had the right to manage their own uteruses. Block shows how menstrual extraction embodied the feminist health movement's core principle that women's knowledge of their bodies was itself political power. Though the practice declined after abortion legalization, it's resurging as abortion access becomes restricted, with women again seeking autonomous control over their reproduction.

Question 27: How have courts and medical professionals violated women's right to refuse medical interventions during childbirth?

Answer: Courts and doctors have systematically violated women's fundamental right to refuse medical interventions during childbirth through physical force, legal coercion, and threats. Block documents cases where women explicitly refusing cesareans were physically restrained, cut against their will, or threatened with child protective services. Doctors have obtained court orders forcing women into surgery, with judges ruling on medical procedures for competent adults in violation of basic autonomy principles. Women report being told they have no right to refuse, with doctors stating "I am the expert" or claiming the fetus's rights supersede the mother's constitutional rights.

These violations occur despite clear legal precedent and ACOG guidelines stating pregnancy doesn't eliminate the right to refuse treatment, even life-saving treatment. Yet doctors in depositions reveal believing they have ultimate authority over how birth happens, with one stating doctors can "override the momma's choice." Courts inappropriately grant orders for forced cesareans, creating precedent that pregnant women have fewer rights than corpses, which cannot be subjected to procedures without prior consent. Block shows how "obstetric violence" has become normalized, with women's reports of forced procedures dismissed or blamed on the women themselves for not complying with medical recommendations.

Question 28: What does Block mean when she says medical technology offers "a tempting workaround for social change"?

Answer: Block argues that medical technology appears to solve problems created by social inequality without requiring structural change - allowing women to freeze eggs rather than demanding workplace flexibility for childbearing, suppressing periods rather than accommodating female biology, formula-feeding rather than ensuring paid maternity leave and lactation support. Technology seems to offer individual solutions to systemic problems, letting society avoid confronting how institutions are structured around male bodies and life patterns. Women can medically conform to masculine norms rather than challenging those norms themselves.

This "workaround" ultimately fails because bodies bear the cost of conformity - egg freezing rarely works, hormonal suppression has side effects, formula increases health risks. The technological solution often creates new problems while leaving underlying inequities intact. Block shows how embracing medical liberation from female biology accepts the premise that women's bodies are the problem rather than social structures. True equality would mean reshaping work, education, and social expectations to accommodate female physiology rather than using medicine to override it. The temptation of the technological fix prevents coalition-building for systematic change, individualizing what are fundamentally collective political problems.

Question 29: How has the medicalization of menopause served pharmaceutical interests?

Answer: The medicalization of menopause transformed a natural life transition into a deficiency disease requiring lifelong pharmaceutical treatment, creating massive markets for hormone therapy and related drugs. Despite the Women's Health Initiative proving hormone replacement therapy increases cancer, stroke, and heart disease risks, pharmaceutical companies pivoted to marketing bioidentical hormones, vaginal estrogen, testosterone supplements, and specialized treatments for invented conditions like "vulvovaginal atrophy." Companies fund "education" campaigns through captured women's organizations promoting menopause as pathology requiring medical management rather than a normal transition.

Marketing specifically targets women's fears about aging, sexuality, and vitality, with companies creating support groups, awareness campaigns, and "educational" materials that invariably lead to pharmaceutical solutions. New drugs for "conditions" like hypoactive sexual desire disorder and osteopenia expand the definition of treatable menopausal pathology. Block reveals how the same companies that promoted dangerous hormone replacement now market new drugs for the same symptoms, using women's health organizations to launder marketing as advocacy. The menopause industry exemplifies how pharmaceutical companies create disease categories from normal physiology, using medicalization to transform aging women into lifelong pharmaceutical consumers.

Question 30: What reforms and alternatives does Block propose for creating healthcare that respects female physiology?

Answer: Block proposes comprehensive reforms centered on "physiological justice" - healthcare that supports rather than suppresses female biology. This includes expanding access to midwives and birth centers for reproductive care, integrating pelvic floor physical therapy as first-line treatment for pain, teaching fertility awareness as basic health literacy, and researching root causes of symptoms rather than masking them with drugs. She advocates for surgical training reform ensuring gynecologists are competent in organ-preserving procedures, evidence-based practice that eliminates routine interventions lacking benefit, and informed consent processes that present all options including doing nothing.

Structurally, Block calls for severing financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and women's health organizations, implementing true shared decision-making where patient autonomy is respected, and creating accountability for obstetric violence and coerced procedures. She envisions healthcare that recognizes the clitoris's full anatomy, treats menopause as a transition rather than disease, and investigates why periods are painful rather than suppressing them. Alternative models include community-based abortion care, self-help health groups, and indigenous healing practices that view bodies holistically. Ultimately, Block argues for repositioning women's physiology from problem to be solved to sophisticated system to be understood, supported, and respected.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.