Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2017

The Current Transcript for December 19, 2017

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: To walk into a pitch or row just to get hit on is devastating to a certain extent. And to experience that over and over and over again can really take a toll, an emotional toll.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: She's talking about sexual harassment in the corporate offices of America. But ask executives in Canada about the prevalence of sexual harassment in their corporations, and apparently, it is not a problem. In fact, a survey taken in the last several weeks says the vast majority of respondents in the C-Suite indicate it's not an issue. And that has left a trail of incredulity from the women who have lived it to the business consultants called in to train and sensitize corporate bosses to the other workers the executives never see. In a moment, we’re dissecting the disconnect.

AMT: Also today tired or wary of hormonal contraceptives? There's an app for that.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Once you've saved today's data, the app will calculate your status for the day. A green day means that you cannot get pregnant. A red day means that you should use protection.

AMT: The European health regulator has just approved a contraceptive app that pairs technology with the age-old rhythm method at a time when the popularity of the pill is waning. Canada alone has seen more than a 10 per cent drop in pill prescriptions. And in an hour, we're asking whether this technological shift is the answer?

AMT: And Tina Fey is a master of comic timing. But even she doesn't mess with the rules of improv

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER ONE: stop, I’ve got a gun.

SPEAKER TWO: The gun the gun I gave you for a wedding anniversary, Eric. How could you?

SPEAKER ONE: We're not married.

SPEAKER TWO: Aha! We're not married it is a denial. We've learned our first improv lesson.

AMT: In a half-an-hour, we look out and listen to the rich history of improvisational theater and the pivotal role Canada played when a troupe of improv impresarios showed up in Toronto with time on their hands. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Part one: Sexual harassment in the workplace

Guests: Martha Hall Findlay, Jennifer Berdahl Hugh Pelmore

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: He said the allegations were patently false against him. I knew otherwise. I knew what kind of guy he was.

SPEAKER TWO: So many women have stories because they don't feel comfortable to tell either, and they have to bare that alone. And that's just absolutely tragic.

SPEAKER THREE: It does not matter if it is in the home, on the streets, in our schools, or in our workplaces. It does not matter if it comes from a lover, a family member, a friend, a colleague, or an employer. Sexual harassment, sexual violence is deplorable. And it must end.

AMT: In many ways, 2017 has felt like a watershed year for exposing sexual harassment in the workplace. From Hollywood to Montreal, women have been speaking out about their experiences. But when it comes to the corridors of corporate power here at home, it seems Canadian executives don't believe sexual harassment is a problem. More than 150 Canadian executives, almost all male, were surveyed in November and December. 94 per cent of them disagreed that sexual harassment is an issue in their companies. That stands in stark contrast to what workers have to say. A StatsCan survey earlier this year found that 30 per cent of respondents had experienced sexual harassment at work. My first guest says she knows all too well how real is the problem of sexual harassment. Martha Hall Findlay as president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, she joins me from our Calgary studio. Hello.

MARTHA HALL FINDLAY: Good morning.

AMT: So what is your reaction to this survey of Canadian executives?

MHF: One of incredulity, to be honest. I mean nine out of ten is astounding. And it shows because of the other surveys of actual employees that this really is a problem. But just to be clear, I mean in earlier life I've spent over 20 years in the corporate world as a lawyer and senior executive. And to see this kind of result at the same time as we have so much disclosure now of what's happening in other industries, it just felt important to be able to say it's great that all these people are coming forward in the entertainment business, and you know out of Hollywood. But this is a real problem in the corporate world too.

AMT: How widespread do you think it is?

MHF: Well, the surveys themselves show that significant numbers of employees have said that it's a problem. It is interesting that the nine out of ten of the senior executives surveyed in the C-Suite survey were men. I suspect that if you were able to interview more women, to be clear, this isn't necessarily a gender thing, but it just so happens that in the corporate world most of the senior people are still men, and most of the people who are trying to get to that place are women. And so it's widespread, and it and it really was a moment when realizing that so many senior executives still felt that there was no problem.

AMT: So Martha Hall Findlay, can you tell us a bit about your own experience with harassment over the years?

MHF: Well, my situations happened quite a long time ago. And I guess the issue here is that it's less it's less a #MeToo opportunity I suppose for somebody like me to come forward. The important thing to realize is that the only reason I can actually come forward and talk about instances where there was discrimination, where I was denied pay because I was refusing advances from senior executives. I mean there are a variety of examples, but I can only come forward now because I actually don't need those jobs. And this is where it's really important. In that moment, 20-25-30 years ago when these events happened, I actually didn't feel I had a choice because if you do come forward in a circumstance like that, you can be fired, you can be denied other opportunities, your reputation suffers. There's no question people coming forward in a corporate environment like that will be labeled whiners or problematic. And when you know, in my case, you have three little kids, you can't afford not to just put up with this. And so for me, it was an opportunity to say two things: one, is not just the entertainment business, it absolutely everywhere. It's sports, try being a female coach of virtually any sport in Canada right now. It's actually a very difficult situation as well. And so it was an important opportunity to say this is actually really widespread. It is not something that's easy for people to come forward, and that was another really important aspect of this is to say look, I can come forward, but there are a lot of people who still can't.

AMT: I want to bring to other people into this conversation. Jennifer Berdahl is a professor of leadership studies with a focus on gender and diversity at UBC. She joins us from Vancouver. Hugh Pelmore is CEO of Arete corporate training services in Vancouver. He's in Kelowna today. Hello to both of you.

JENNIFER BERDAHL: Good morning.

HUGH PELMORE: Good morning.

AMT: Jennifer Berdahl why do you think there's such a disconnect between what workers, especially women report about sexual harassment and how executives in the C-Suite see it?

JB: I think it's really concerning. I think either the executives are suffering from some kind of willful ignorance or they're not listening to their employees or not paying attention to what's happening in their organizations or they don't consider it a problem. Over 30 per cent of these executives said that they had heard of sexual harassment within their organizations, yet 94 per cent of them said it wasn't a problem. So there's a real disconnect even within the executives themselves.

AMT: How well do you think they understand the term?

JB: Yeah, that's a good question too. Sexual harassment is often understood as this very extreme, Harvey Weinstein form of sexual harassment. Hostile environment harassment is the most common form of sexual harassment, and that's the sexist joking comments, things that put women down, and create an environment that makes it clear that they're not welcome or respected in it. And that's much more common. And so it could be that these executives aren't really paying attention to that or don't see that as a problem, and may only think that these egregious sexual coercion forms of harassment are what we should be concerned about and they don't hear about them perhaps, or they're not really paying attention.

AMT: So what is the correct definition of sexual harassment?

JB: Sexual harassment is defined as harassment based on sex. Simply put. So it doesn't necessarily have to be sexual predation. It can be just harassing somebody, making their work environment uncomfortable based on their sex or their gender. So sex based harassment is probably the more appropriate term. When you think of the term racial harassment, sexual harassment should be a similar definition in one's mind because it's harassment that is putting somebody down based on sex.

AMT: Hugh Pelmore, you consult with business leaders. What do you think of this study? Are the C-Suite executives ignorant? Are they putting their heads in the sand?

HUGH PELMORE: I think a little bit of that. Again, I think it comes down to definition as it was said too. I think there's a lot of people imagining the more extreme cases or they don't see that happening in their workplace or they see it as an isolated situation. So it's not out of control or rampant for them. So they just may not be aware of the impact that it's having. And I think that's what we see when we're working with companies on the nature and severity. But these incidents where there's the inappropriate conversations, comments, and so on. And I should say involving men and women, and the impact that it does have and, of course, prevention or getting on these things earlier on versus waiting for the more extreme behaviors to ramp up.

AMT: So what are the executives telling you?

HP: Well, the proactive ones are actually contacting us and saying we need to get on this. In B.C., we have very strong legislation through WorkSafe B.C. that organizations have to have policies, procedures, training, and that's made a big difference in the last couple of years that we've seen with our organization. So for their own reasons, it could be they want to avoid the PR nightmare. Otherwise, they don't want WorkSafe B.C. knocking on the door. And proactive companies recognize that this is going to impact turnover, absenteeism, morale, productivity, and they see the importance and want this managed.

AMT: So Hugh, is there more harassment related consulting work since the #MeToo movement began?

HP: It's difficult to say, but I would say the last little while we've seen more companies contacting us that we might have past. It’s sort of surprising to hear some companies are saying wow, this is a company that probably hasn't done a lot in the past few years, and is now getting onto this, and again, proactive organizations that have been addressing this, maybe ineffectually, for the last 10 or 15 years.

AMT: What kind of training are your clients asking for?

HP: Well, what they're asking for and what we deliver sometimes separate because they are wanting to start with education around what is harassment, the definitions, process for reporting it, having employees aware of what it actually looks like, and our take on it is that most people, men and women, know how to behave in a workplace. The reasonable but silent majority. There are probably three or four employees in a hundred that cross that line. Who either refuse to play by the rules or just don't recognize that their behaviors are problematic. So are push is to motivate the reasonable majority to speak up and support their co-workers, rather than come in and teach people how to behave.

AMT: Martha Hall Findlay, so businesses do seek out training or ways to beef up policies, is that enough?

MHF: Well, I think it's great, don’t get me wrong. But no, I don't think it's enough. And let me just specify a couple of different nuances here. And I think it's important to be talking about the definition, so when you talk about a hostile environment, that's one thing, and it's serious, no question. But my focus in particular has been a little bit more on the ones who actually control the purse strings. So whether it's a CEO, whether it's senior executives, and especially if it's a CEO, who are you going to complain to? And so you know having sat on a number of boards of directors being an Institute of Corporate Directors ICD, this is also an important element. Boards of Directors have to be aware and alive to this as well. So if there is a suggestion and somehow there's a need to figure out how do you get this communication out? But if the CEO or a senior executive is the one actually involved here, then the board also has to take action. And so I think there's an opportunity here too in terms of the senior executive ranks, in terms of corporate culture, but also a requirement that boards of directors be alive to this issue as well.

AMT: Should there be penalties that go beyond what you know exist now, Martha.

MHF: Listen, if you steal, if you engage in fraud these activities are cause for immediate dismissal this kind of behavior. And if there are perhaps approaches in terms of the different definitions it is a problematic thing to be able to say this is one this is one issue. I think there are degrees of seriousness. They’re all seriousness, but there are different degrees of how you deal with it and what and what the specific examples and circumstances are. But yes, where it's a serious problem it should be zero tolerance.

AMT: Hugh Pelmore, the existing sexual harassment and bullying policies. if 30 per cent of workers say they've experienced harassment in the workplace, according to StatsCan, how effective are these? Martha brings up this idea of like who do you complain to? How much of that is a problem in the people you talk to?

HP: It's a problem for sure. The processes and policies we see organizations very sophisticated with their policies and procedures. But when it comes down to the floor where the employees are working, the managers, and so on, it's the workplace culture. So do they actually feel that they can speak up? And are their co-workers beside them who are observing or witnessing this unwanted behavior are they supporting their colleagues as well? So you know policies and procedures don't stop behaviors .That stops, again, employees motivated to speak up, managers willing to take action, and A policy with teeth. So at the end there will be some consequences. Again, I think it does depend on nature and severity. But if we're not willing to say this person could be disciplined or possibly terminated if organizations aren’t willing to do that then those few people who are crossing the line recognize that and continue with their behaviors.

AMT: Jennifer Berdahl, what are you seeing in business schools? What's the attitude? How are they dealing with this?

JB: Well, business schools have not traditionally taught sexual harassment training, and educated their students very much about this. For a long time I was the only professor in my department that even talked about the subject?

AMT: And people wondered why, right?

JB: Yeah, there was this funny instance where I was coming up for tenure, and I was asked what are you doing in a business school? Your research doesn't really belong in one because I study sexual harassment. So I think that it is a long-time coming that we start educating students, so that when they do go out into the workforce, they know what this is, they know what causes it, and they know what they should be doing about it. I would add to some of the previous comments about this being an individual perpetrator problem, maybe three or four out of a hundred. To this being really an organizational culture problem. So it's not just a matter of a few bad actors out there. Of course, there are some extreme few bad actors, and several of them are being called out right now in Hollywood. But it's also an organizational culture problem where you have a social network of men who might be protecting each other. The CEO may not be the harasser but may be friends with the harassers and not doing anything about it. And we tend to see sexual harassment being most prevalent in organizations that are dominated by men, that have very few women in leadership positions, and that have certain aspects of their culture that signal that in order to make it here you need to be a quote/unquote “real man” or you need to be able to put up with and engage in this kind of bantering behavior.

AMT: And Jennifer, I'm wondering as well we often hear about people in an entry, in the early years of their work facing this kind of thing. But what about women who are clearly advancing? As they advance, what kind of harassment do they do they get in the business world?

JB: That's a good question too because we often picture sort of the vulnerable young woman being the main target of sexual harassment and that is a problem. But we also see in the StatsCan survey for example of workers it's really women between 30 and 44 who were reporting the highest rates of sexual harassment. So those are women who are really coming up into their own within the organization that's when you would be looking for that promotion and that ascendancy. And another really interesting study showed that women who were in positions of power were the ones who were most likely to be sexually harassed. So in the organization itself they're going to be experiencing the most pushback when they have power. So it isn't just a matter of power. It's also very much a matter of gender. And gender is a form of power with which you can harass somebody.

AMT: Hugh Pelmore and Martha Hall Findlay, you're both CEOs. How do you make sure your employees are being heard?

MHF: By living this stuff, by making sure that people are aware of what's acceptable and what's not. I mean my staff are all seeing what I'm doing and the piece I wrote yesterday and being on this show. I think it's really important that people see that you're willing to get out and talk about this and make sure that not only are people talking about it, but their behavior ensures that there is a mutual respect and regard among all of one's colleagues.

AMT: Hugh Pelmore?

HP: Yeah, obviously, the staff we have our policies and process and so on. I'm the only male in the workplace from my workplace, and so we understand that we live it. I think it's a good way of saying that. When we present, we have to present a person who gets this. And also, we're not going in as trainers naively to say we can't as humans cross that line. It's possible, whether it's an innocent, seemingly innocent, and so on. We're on the stage. We have to be very careful of that we also don't want to come in when we're trying to convince the employer group to that you can still have fun at work, and there's such a thing as consensual banter that we have to be realistic. And we have represent real people that are capable of crossing the line and making mistakes. And that can still happen even in training when we're thinking Hey, I am not sure if I quite set up properly and we need to apologize and work through that and have participants really appreciate that we’re taking it on that way versus a squeaky clean approach, where nobody can say anything anymore. We have to walk around on egg shells. And I think you get more pushback from that approach.

AMT: OK, well thank you all for weighing in on this.

MHF/JB/HP: Thank you.

AMT: I've been speaking with Martha Hall Findlay, president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation.

She's in our Calgary studio. Jennifer Berdahl is a professor of leadership studies with a focus on gender and diversity at UBC. She joined us from our Vancouver studio. And Hugh Pelmore is CEO of Arete corporate training services. He's in Kelowna, B.C. Let us know what you think of this and what you're thinking about what that survey really says: the CEOs who say it's not a problem in their corporations. Tweet us: @thecurrentcbc, find us on Facebook, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/thecurrent. And stay with us, the CBC News is next. And then quick, improvise!

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: unusual things for a neighbour to ask to borrow.

SPEAKER TWO: Suzanne, I need to borrow your husband.

AMT: Improv comedy, it is where plenty of comedies brightest stars have mastered their craft for generations. Now improv is having its own story told in a new book. The author of “Improv Nation” joins me in our next half-hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Part two: From Second City to Stephen Colbert: author Sam Wasson tracks history of the art of improvisation

Guest: Sam Wasson

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come: more and more women are choosing to go off the birth control pill and opt for something more natural. Now there's an app for that. In half-an-hour, we will talk about the first and only to be recognized as a medical device for contraception in the European Union. But first, some Christmas cheer courtesy of “SCTV”.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house, I could hear something stirring. It was my husband that louse. He came back to bed, but I heard not a word from the weasel I wed. So I sled down my housecoat, hung my stockings with care. But except for those items, my body was bare. I scared the whole house, but my search was in vain. And visions of homicide danced through my brain. Whe out of the lawn there rose such a sound, I ran to the door and tore open my gown. With the moon on my breast and the new fallen snow, gave the luster of youth that I had long ago. When what to my baby blue eyes what should appear but a man dressed in red for head to his rear. From the leer in his eye to the hump in his back, I knew in a flash that it must be my Jack. More rapid than eagles his coursers they came, and he whistled and shouted and called me by name. Now Dusty, now Dusty, now Dusty, please Dusty. His eyes how they twinkled, his dimples how merry, his legs were like fir trees, his chest was so hairy. With a wink of his eye and a jerk of his head soon gave me to know I had something to dread. He stood there just smiling and rubbing his nose. So I gave him the nod, and up the staircase, he rose. He sprang to the bedroom and whistled so sweet that I followed his call like a heifer in heat. We both screamed as we dove undercover. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good life.

AMT: From the “SCTV” vault, that was the “Dusty Towne Sexy Holiday Special”. And, of course, Dusty's alter ego is none other than the Canadian comedy great Catherine O'Hara. As with so many of her fellow funny Canucks, Martin Short, Eugene Levy, Dan Akroyd, John Candy Catherine O'Hara comedic timing has honed in large part through improv comedy. The higher-wire act of making it up as you go is part of the secret of their success, just as it has been for comedians before them and since. The fascinating world of improv is the subject of a new book by the author Sam Wasson. It's called “Improv Nation: How We Made a Great American Art.” Sam Wasson is with me from Los Angeles. Hello.

SAM WASSON Hi. Thank you.

AMT: You call it a great American art, but c'mon, there's some real Canadian talent in that art.

SW: Oh well, of course, well anyone can play this. I mean it's really a great human art, but the book is about how and why it started in America, and specifically Chicago. And then it moved, of course, to Canada in the mid-1970s, and landed upon this unbelievably gifted, embarrassingly gifted, group of people like the people you just mentioned.

AMT Well, we'll get to them in a bit. But let me ask you first then how do you define improve?

SW: Well, that's great! Let me think, let me improvise, I think it's two or more people jumping into the unknown together. If it's one person jumping into the unknown, he or she can fall back on what he or she knows to get out of that situation. But if two people, or more than two people, are in the unknown together, they push each other just by virtue of their own spontaneity outside of their conscious mind, which is where everything is that they do know. That's kind of a metaphysical strange answer, but this is a metaphysical strange art.

AMT: Well, and you really do have to be fast on your feet, fast with your brain?

SW: Well, some people would say that the faster you are the better you are. I mean Del Close, who is one of the great thinkers about improvisation, later in life really taught what's called slow comedy. Second thought or third thought is the best thought. It's not so important to be fast, but it's more important to be real.

AMT: OK, so tell us about the woman you credit with starting improv in the United States?

Viola Spolin Bohlen absolutely invented this work. And she did not invent it for performance; she did not invent it for art. She was a social worker, and she worked at Hull House, which was a settlement house in Chicago in the ‘20s and ‘30s. And she was the charge of young children who were separated by class, culture, language, everything that could separate a person. The only thing they had in common was that they were here in this one place. And, obviously, they couldn't they couldn't communicate. Certainly, there were impediments to their communication. And in order to facilitate interaction between the children, to melt the melting pot of America, unknowingly she invented improvisational games. Ways to get these children to interact. And then, of course, was her son Paul Sills who put those games on stage and really invented what we think of today as the improvisational theater.

AMT: It's interesting as she was Jewish and she was a socialist. There a Jewish socialist root to improv.

SW: Yep, absolutely.

AMT: So, how was what she taught unique in theater?

SW: As far as I can tell, and I'm pretty certain this is true, I mean I published it. There was no theater where non-professionals got up on stage, these were non-professionals, these were trained actors, and asked the audience for a suggestion that simply did not exist. I mean adlibbing, of course, has been a function of the theater so long as there has been a theater. But can I get a suggestion, go! There's no there's no record of that in the history of the theater. And Viola was certainly the one to codify it. And out of that grew what became Second City.

AMT: You call improv the ultimate form of freedom of speech. Why?

SW: Yeah well, in a purely improvisational environment you are in the unknown, anything can happen, you can say anything. There are only guidelines to help you play with another player, but there are no rules. And that that to me sounds like the freest possible venue for speech.

AMT: Can anyone do it?

SW: Yes, and that's the other beautiful thing about this. And Viola writes about this in her book. Anyone can improvise, which isn't to say anyone will be a great improviser, you know? Not everyone is going to be Catherine O'Hara. But given the guidelines, anyone can do it. And in doing it, access the truth that when it is when it is presented on stage is art. So yes, anyone can do this. And unlike jazz, the other great American art form, you don't have to know how to read music. I mean I could never play jazz. I don't know how to read music. But I could certainly get up on stage and improvise.

AMT: How important is the relationship between the audience and the person onstage doing the improv?

SW: Essential. The audience is the invisible player on stage. And a good improviser can feel the room. You know whether the silence is saying the audience is gripped, or whether the silence is saying the audience is bored, they're getting subconscious cues if they're any good throughout the entire performance.

AMT: Even though improv is made up on the spot, it does have rules. I've got a clip here. This is “Saturday Night” Live alumnus Tina Fey, speaking with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt about one of the rules.

SOUNDCLIP

TINA FEY: There's an old story about Joan Rivers was at the Second City briefly in 1959-1960, and they use this in class at Second City all the time that there was someone came in and said I want to divorce this beginning of the scene. She said I want to divorce, and whoever was with her and said but what about the children? And she said we don't have any children, which in the moment got a big laugh, but killed the scene.

ERIC SCHMIDT: my response would yes, we have children. I just didn't tell you and that's why we're getting divorced.

TF: Yes. I have some other children.

ES: Yes.

TF: Yes, this is exactly why.

AMT: Sam Wasson, are there other rules for improv?

SW: It depends on who you ask, what theater you're in. But fundamentally, what Tina Fey is describing is the concept of “yes, and”. And it's pretty unanimously agreed upon that this is the foundation bedrock upon which all schools of improvisation can build their own theory.

AMT: What do you mean “yes, and”?

SW: In other words, if an improviser says we have children, you can't say to that improviser, if you're on stage, no, we don't have children. That's saying no to them. And it's important to distinguish simple disagreement, which is allowed, from undermining the reality that the other player put forward. That's pretty much a no, no. But once that reality is established, of course, people can disagree about ideas or feelings that go along. But they can't agree about the actual facts, the premise of the scene.

AMT: Because you're building on that reality.

SW: Exactly, yes.

AMT: And you take it somewhere else.

SW: That's right. Right, that's the collaborative part of this that to me feels like democracy.

AMT: When I think of improv probably the first thing that comes to mind is Second City. Tell me about the people who founded Second City.

SW: Well let's see, they were Paul Sills, who I mentioned, the son of Viola Spolin. There was Bernie Sahlins, one of the producers of Second City, and there was that fantastic Second City company, many of which were a holdover from Sills previous improvisational theater The Compass. Snd I'm thinking of Barbara Harris, I believe Eugene Troobnick was right there, the unbelievable Severn Darden, Alan Arkin was not quite at the beginning, but he was about a year thereafter. That that group of people we really think of as the first-generation of Second City performers, and we're talking ’59-1960.

AMT: And who came after that?

SW: Oh god.

AMT: Like the Belushis?

SW: Belushi doesn't come until 71 I think. But before Belushi, there was Fred Willard, and David Steinberg, and Robert Klein, there was Joan Rivers, there was Del Close, like I mentioned. Snd then in the Belushi-era, you had Joe Flaherty, and you had Harold Ramus, you had Brian Doyle Murray, and you had Bill Murray, and then you go up to Canada and you get a group that becomes SCTV.

AMT: Why is it called Second City?

SW: There was a snooty article in the New Yorker about why Chicago was not New York. Not as sophisticated as New York. And the author of that piece called Chicago “the second city”. And the founders of Second City, the Second City Theatre, took the name on as a kind of ironic badge of honour. And one of the reasons I think it's appropriate for a comedy theater is that comedy is about being subordinate. It's about being number two or feeling like you're number two. So I think that it actually has become a perfect way to think about comedy being Second City, being second.

AMT: And how did Second City migrate north to Toronto in the ‘70s?

SW: Bernie Sahlins, who I just mentioned, was talking to Joe Flaherty and his theater in I believe 72-73ish. And he had a friend up and up in Canada, who suggested to Bernie that it might be a good idea if Second City sent group north. It was an absolute accident, totally arbitrary, except for this friend that Bernie had. And so Bernie said to Joe is this interesting to you? And Joe you know he “yes, and’’ed that suggestion. He says sure, why not. Let's go. And up they went to Toronto. And they saw “Godspell”. And they were all there.

AMT: And what's the connection to “Godspell”, the musical.

SW: Well, performing in Godspell at the time were, oh god, there were different incarnations, so I might not get the chronology right. But certainly Andrea Martin, Martin Short, Eugene Levy was in at one point, Catherine O'Hara either auditioned… she was she was around certainly “Godspell”, Gilda was there, and because “Godspell” allowed its performers an uncommon amount of improvisation for a stage musical, The Second City group sitting in the audience could really see the potential here for Second City performers. And what's significant about this is that there was no improvisation in Chicago or virtually anywhere else in America. So it wasn't like Bernie Sahlins could go to Toronto's local improvisational theater and cast from there. It simply did not exist so the closest thing to it was “Godspell”.

AMT: you know I was a real fan of “Godspell” when I was a kid. I didn't know that it had all that improv in it.

SW: Yeah, there were moments that Stephen Schwartz, the composer, built into the show for his players to sort of I wasn't pure improvisation in the sense that I defined it earlier of leaping into the unknown with another person. But there was room for adlibbing, and there was room for play. And from what Flaherty and Bernie Sahlins saw of that adlib play, they extrapolated the potential for real improvisational performers.

AMT: Well, I have another piece of tape to play for you. It's a bit of comedic history from the CBC archives. This is from 1974.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER ONE: And now, the National Lampoon Radio Hour Singles Bar of the Year, your opportunity to meet some of today's most beautiful, bright, talented, sensitive, and unattached young men and women. Our male listeners today will now be approached by Ellen Matterson, a dynamite chick who comes to the National Lampoon Radio Hour Singles Bar every week, always hoping to find that perfect mate who will love her, care for her, and help to raise her children. Will that perfect man be you? Listen to Ellen now, as she says hello to you. And after she finishes, we'll tell you how you can ask her for a date.

SPEAKER TWO: I think the important thing for a man and a women is that they enjoy talking to each other. I smoke Virginia Slims, but I never inhale. I'm afraid of rats, the dark, fast rollercoasters and I close my eyes during certain parts of the “Clockwork Orange” movie.

AMT: OK, that's a very young Bill Murray and Gilda Radner. Sam Wasson How did Toronto help launch Gilda Radner’s career?

SW: Well, Gilda joined the first's Second City Company in Toronto, and also in that group was Akroyd, Joe Flaherty, Jane Eastwood, and the incredible Valerie Bromfield, I believe Jerry Saltzberg, I might not be getting them all right. But once Gilda got on stage… although Gilda did not like to improvise and was terrified of it, and I don't think you ever really got over it. Whatever Gilda was immediately apparent. And it was virtually obvious to everyone that Gilda was headed where she was headed.

AMT: How successful was the Second City Theatre in Toronto when it first opened?

SW: It was very popular in the improv sets. After the show, they would open up the theater for free improv sets. And the young and hip of Toronto would come in. But it was not easy to monetize this, especially with the liquor laws that were in place in Toronto. And all the prohibitions about what constituted legitimate dinner theater, and what that did to the price of tickets, which, of course, couldn't be too high because these are works in progress. So how do you charge people for what's really not yet finished? So all of that made it very hard to commercialize this, but it really came down to the genius and the creativity of Andrew Alexander, who was responsible for overseeing the Toronto leg of Second City. It was Andrew Alexander who figured out how to crack this commercially. And that took that took a couple of years.

AMT: What did he do?

SW: Well, he found a way to get a liquor license, and I'm not remembering exactly how he did it because I don't remember all the Toronto laws, but then word spread that something really hip was going on over here in Toronto. That there was nothing like it. I mean there was virtually no comedy scene in Toronto, which is why all the funny people were so available. They were like you know fish-in-a-barrel creatively. So once that word spread, and Andrew figured out how to sell the booze, it became a hit.

AMT: And it was like a magnet then for the comedians, yeah. These are very creative people who work very closely together. Some cast members began dating other members. How did that affect the troupe?

SW: Really well, they could all play together. You know it was a different time, it was the ‘70s, sex was a little lighter, it was a little easier, and you know this happened so much, especially in this work because when you're doing it right, you create a connection. And sex can flow so naturally out of that. I mean I can only imagine really how beautiful it was to be a part of this community. It's not true of just the Toronto group. this is true across almost every improvisational ensemble. The bonds are so deep; it's almost inevitable that sex will be a part of it.

AMT: You quote Catherine O'Hara I think as saying laughter was a turn on.

SW: Yeah, well for me it is. And for Catherine it certainly is.

AMT: For a lot of people it is.

SW: Yeah, good! That's good news.

AMT: So there was “SCTV”, which was filmed both in Toronto and Edmonton, “Saturday Night Live” from New York. How was it decided which Second City comedian was going to go on which show?

SW: Well let's see, “Saturday Night Live” started in ’75, and so Lorne Michaels picked who whomever he wanted. I mean there was there was nowhere else for these people to go basically after improvisational theater, except back into the legit stage. So once Lorne Michaels picked his group, it was Andrew Alexander who thought as a defensive move. Well, we have to keep some people here, so we don't lose all of our talent to New York. And the way he did that was by creating, with many of these other brilliant people, the show that became “SCTV”. And Joe Flaherty then was the guy who really cast “SCTV”. It was Flaherty's sensibility that that was responsible for Andrea Martin, and Harold Ramus, and Eugene, and Dave Thomas and all the folks in Second City Season One.

AMT: Since President Trump was elected, “Saturday Night Live” has been a powerhouse of comedy and politics, so why do you think that is. Well, you can't deliver these headlines with a straight face. You just can't. And so it seems almost inevitable then that “Saturday Night Live” would be the home for news. You can't convey a lot of the anger that a lot of us are feeling down here in America with just straight reporting. It would take a comedian at the at the level of a Melissa McCarthy to convey the rage of a Spicer, and really address the rage that so much of us feel. So in that sense, comedy is, of course, more healing than the news. So it feels good. And also, because these sketches are three minutes, four minutes, five minutes they're easy to share on Facebook and Twitter. An Anderson Cooper clip isn't really going to go viral, you know? so because of the viral potential of “Saturday Night Live”, it's drawn more and more people to “Saturday Night Live”, and it's fed on itself.

AMT: From what you've seen of his presidency, would Donald Trump be good at improve?

SW: No. No, because saying “fake news” is not saying “yes, and”. That is a perfect example of destroying the reality of the other person. It's not merely saying I disagree, which Trump has every right to do, but to say that doesn't exist is destroying the scene.

AMT: How important has improv been in shaping the comedy we see today?

SW: The world that we see today simply does not exist without it. Not just because so many of our comedians came from improve, they had improv backgrounds, but because so much of the comedy that we see in film and television is improvised or improvised in the writers’ room. This is how so much of comedy is made today.

AMT: You've done improv onstage.

SW: Yes, I'm afraid I have.

AMT: I was going to ask you how was it? But I think you just answered that.

SW: Well, I was less interested in the jokes, which I was only so good at, and more interested in the therapeutic aspects of improvisation. And enjoying the feeling of being in flow with another person, and getting out of your head, and being in the moment. And that's really where the next frontier of improvisation is I think. Is wellness and addressing anxiety and so much of the work that's going on at Second City, and other improvisational theaters, is right there, is right in the middle of that psychological material.

AMT: You're talking about the importance of the improvisational spirit in life?

SW: Yes, exactly, how to be free. If we can be free, then we're going to be okay. And like I was saying in the beginning of this talk, you can't be free on your own. Then you get caught up in your own thoughts. You can only really be free with another person.

AMT: So essentially you're telling me that improve, which began with Viola Spolin, who was trying to integrate a group of children who were separated by class and origin with play is exactly where we're going back to with improv. We're trying to find another way to be well and to be in harmony.

SW: you got it, that's exactly right. And it shows you that Viola really was on to something. Even though it became something else, what she started with is the absolute core of this. And it confirms, in fact, that not just that everyone can play, but everybody should play.

AMT: It also confirms in all the world's a stage.

SW: Yeah, it's certainly an improvisational stage.

AMT: Sam Wasson, thanks for your time. This is great.

SW: Thank you so much.

AMT: Sam Wasson's book is “Improv Nation: How We Made a Great American Art”. We have more of “SCTV”'s “Dusty Towne Sexy Holiday Special”. This is John Candy as Divine.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Don’t need a lot of friends to make my Christmas bright. I just need my baby’s arms wound around me tight. Oh Santa, hear my plea. Santa, bring my baby back to me. Please make those reindeer come here. The time is drawing near. It don’t feel like Christmas unless my Baby is here. Don’t fill my sock with candy. No bright and shiny toy. You want to make me happy and fill my heart with joy then Santa, hear my plea. Santa bring my baby back to me.

AMT: John Candy and Catherine O'Hara, from decades gone by. Coming up: trading and the birth control pill for an app. I'm Anna Maria Tramonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Part three: Why some women are ditching the birth control pill for an app

Guests: Catherine Macnab, Dustin Costescu, Lindsay Beyerstein

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, and you're listening to The Current. Up next: going off the pill.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: I did not like the effects of the pill on my body.

SPEAKER TWO: The hormonal issue contributed to kind of skin problem.

SPEAKER THREE: I have an advent calendar, and I'm actually two or three days behind. So even chocolate it's hard for me to take every day.

SPEAKER FOUR: I ended up getting really, really bad cystic acne.

SPEAKER FIVE: I'm already a pretty moody, broody person, and you add hormonal birth control on top of that. And I can just barely stand myself.

SPEAKER SIX: I don't see myself going back to hormonal birth control again, and definitely not the pill.

AMT: Just a small sampling of some of the many women who have decided to stop using the birth control pill. Of course, when the pill was first introduced in the ‘60s, it helped usher in a new sense of freedom. Finally, women could take their, sexual, personal, and professional lives into their own hands. Half a century later, the pill’s popularity is waning. Canadian pharmacists dispensed more than a million fewer prescriptions in 2015 than they had in 2011. That's more than a 10 per cent drop. Tnstead of the pill, more women are opting for hormone free, non-invasive birth control methods. Some are turning to new technologies to help them rediscover age-old methods of contraception. That includes apps such as Natural Cycles that use what's known as fertility awareness, or rhythm. Earlier this year, Natural Cycles became the first and only app in Europe to receive certification as a medical device for contraception. And the app has its sights set on getting certified in North America next. Today, we're asking what's at stake and relying on an app for birth control? And why women are looking for alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Catherine Macnab is executive director of Planned Parenthood Ottawa. She's in our Ottawa studio. And Dr. Dustin Costescu is a gynecologist and an assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at McMaster University. He's in Hamilton, Ontario. Hello to you both.

CATHERINE MCNAB: Good morning.

DUSTIN COSTESCU: Thanks for having us.

AMT: Catherine Macnab, these new apps like Natural Cycles, what are they promising to do?

CM: Well, my understanding is they're promising a more natural form of birth control than people who are using hormonal methods. And I think we need to be careful about framing it as more natural. It's a bit misleading suggesting that there's something inherently organic about going that route. So you know there's people who are living very organically who use hormonal birth control methods. And so I think we really need to reframe the question to are they moving towards more natural methods? Or are they specifically moving away from hormonal and moving away from the pill?

AMT: And can you tell if they're moving toward something or away from something?

CM: We don't know that. But what we do know is that there's a lot of side effects, there's a lot of reasons that people would not want to be on the pill, there's a lot of issues around taking at the same time every day. You know there are people who feel that it interferes with their cycle. And so what we know is there's a lot more options out there than there was even 10 years ago. And I suspect what we see is people moving towards options that give them a better sense of control or that they feel that they can use more consistently than the pill.

AMT: And how does something like Natural Cycles work them?

CM: Well as you said, Natural Cycles is tracking what's really the oldest form of birth control, which fertility awareness. And just to slip into a little quick anatomy lesson, the reproductive cycle has different signs that it gives too. So the most obvious is when people get a period. But there's other things that are happening throughout the cycle too. And if you understand how the system works, you can you can identify what they are. So you know in the ‘50s, we came up with the “billing method”, which was you know tracking the texture of the cervical mucus, and people could tell their fertility. So what Natural Cycle does is trace another sign, which is the temperature, so when somebody ovulates, their Basil Body Temperature goes up by half a degree, and you can see that. And then you know when you're when you're fertile period.

AMT: It’s essentially a glorified version of the rhythm method.

CM: Exactly, exactly. Except with Natural Cycles, you don't actually need to understand how the system works. So if you're using the other you know symptom tracking systems, you need to have graph paper, you need to know how to count backwards, you need to really understand how it works. But what Natural Cycle does is it does the thinking for you. So you wake up, and if you've done this for several cycles, you put in your temperature, and it's going to tell you it's either a green day or a red day. And the green day means that you can go ahead and have unprotected sex. The red day means that you're in a fertile period, so you should use backup method if you don't want to get pregnant.

AMT: And this is the only contraceptive app to be certified by European regulators as a medical device. Do you know what makes it unique?

CM: Well, they've done a fair bit of research on it. So they have the numbers to back it up. And you know what they've been able to show is the green days are very, very accurate. So in terms of device failure, if you only have unprotected sex on the green days, there's a very slim, I think it's one in a thousand people that will get pregnant on it. Compared to user failures what we would say, where you know if somebody has the red day and they have sex anyway that’s unprotected, or they use a condom inappropriately, or you know they use withdrawal and don't get the timing right. And so the real failure rate happens when people have a red day, and you know whatever it is that they do ends up with pregnancy.

AMT: Dustin Costescu, what do you think of women preferring these apps over going to a health care professional for a prescription or an IUD?

DUSTIN COSTESCU: Yeah, it's a great question. So one of the things about the Natural Cycles app is it does provide education and opportunities for women to use as many tools at their disposal for natural family planning. So when we're talking about natural family planning what we're talking about is non-intervention. So whereas you take a pill, you use an IUD, natural family planning means you don't do something, but you're still able to use technology in order to make it work. So with Natural Cycles for instance, you could consider using ovulation predictor kits to improve the algorithm to be even more certain that you have a green day for instance. One of the challenges that we have as contraception experts and as physicians is there's a lot of confusion about natural family planning. And doctors are not typically a source of information to educate women about how to use natural family planning correctly. And what we've seen historically in the last few years is that many period tracking apps actually do a very bad job of tracking fertility days. They're not too bad if you want to get pregnant because there's a fudge factor there. But when you're trying to prevent pregnancy, they're not very good at identifying, particularly for those women who cycles might be a little bit out of the range of normal your typical 28 to 30 day cycle. Natural Cycles uses algorithms and is actually using user data to try to better refine itself in order to make better predictions as you go along. So I do think it's a good option for those women who feel very strongly about using natural family planning because, in fact, it is combining what we've known historically for generations, as well as using the newer technologies to help identify those fertile windows.

AMT: But you seem to be telling me so they'll go to a doctor for a prescription or an IUD, but they might just do this on their own, and a patient would benefit from actually still consulting with a doctor on using an app?

DC: I still think that there's value in that because really there's only one or two apps I would recommend to them and using natural family planning. So in my practice, I see a lot of women with complex birth control needs. And even those women if I'm offering birth control say well, no, no I'm using natural family planning. When I offer to provide some advice or insight often the response is one of resistance. And that they really are looking for nonmedical. And so it's a bit of a paradox. But we have to be very careful as healthcare providers. If we're not vetting the technology you know it's not enough for us to say Google it. Or to go to your Play Store and download an app. And so having some science to back this up gives me some hope that if people are going to choose to use this method, and I agree with some caveats, then we should offer them the best opportunity to use these methods.

AMT: Now Dustin Costescu, what are you hearing from women about why they're moving away from the pill?

DC: Yeah, the two most common reasons that we see are issues of adherence, so the fact that all of us have trouble taking a pill every single day. And certainly, I don't think I would be very good at taking the pill every day if it was necessary for me. And so women move towards more effective, less dose-dependent options like intrauterine devices. And then we see issues around side effects. And one of the challenges we have with side effects is a lot of the literature doesn't show us in for instance a placebo controlled trial, so we are taking either a sugar pill or hormones that these side effects are there, but yet we're hearing from women very often that they feel that they have side effects from their birth control. And so what the challenge is trying to work with women, be patient, try to understand the side effects, and try to find a method that works with them. But many women will just simply discontinue the method, or they're advised by a health care provider why don't you stop the method? See what happens. And, unfortunately, during that time period, they're at risk of unplanned pregnancy.

AMT: I have a clip I'd like you to hear. This is a woman describing her experience with the pill. This is Sima Zerehi.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: After years, and years, and years of being on it, I got on the pill when I was 16. I thought it was just too many years to be on any kind of any kind of medication like that. And I thought that it could have detrimental results on my body and in my ability to have a baby one day. And so I got off to the pill. The part that is still confusing to me is that I got off the pill. But in a way, I didn't really come up with a quick solution of what I would replace it with.

AMT: Catherine Macnab, how common is that? People who want to get off the pill because they've been on it for decades, but don't know where to go?

CM: Well, that's certainly we see a lot of that at Planned Parenthood. That people want to change and don't know what it is. So you know going back to what Dustin said about one of the reasons that people don't want to be on the pill is because of the everyday factor, the same time every day. And people looking at Natural Cycles will realize they have to do the same thing. They have to take their temperature every day, before they get out of bed. So there's a lot of options out there. And there's probably nothing that's absolutely perfect for everybody. But it's really difficult for people to learn about these options. I mean we've got Dr. Google, of course. And then you know go into a doctor and to discuss all the options around birth control. There's just really not enough time to look at all the different options. And, of course, there's different ways to rank birth control in terms of its usability for people. So there's effectiveness, of course. But then there's other things: there's cost, and you know does your insurance cover it, you know you have to actually interrupt sex to use it, do you have to touch yourself, do you need your partner to cooperate, can you hide it from your partner, can you hide it from your parents, you know is it does it fit into your cultural or religious beliefs, and so you know it's challenging for people when they're trying to make a decision. Because it is a it is a complex decision with a lot of conflicting priorities.

AMT: Dustin Costescu, what do you say to women who have the concerns that the woman in our clip had?

DC: Yeah, absolutely, Sima brings up a good point and a common concern we have, which is how long is too long to use your birth control? Interestingly, if you use the birth control pill for ten years, you actually will reduce your risk of ovarian cancer in your lifetime by 50 per cent, even if you stop using it after that. And studies show again and again that short-term after stopping the birth control pill, your fertility is quite quickly restored. So it's a legitimate concern. There's this issue about the long-term use. But in fact, we can reassure women that it's very safe. I think that one thing we run into, similar to condom use, is the idea of pill fatigue, which is ten years in, you're asking yourself why am I still doing this? You know 3,600 pills later? And is there is some other option that we can use? But the first thing I would do with a woman in my office who has this concern is to reassure her that she's, in fact, done no harm. And then to work with her to try to find another option depending on what it is that she's worried about.

AMT: Well, do you do you suggest the patch or the IUD, as opposed to rhythm and app?

DC: So the most important thing is that women who choose to use rhythm or natural family planning, we recommend this in our guidelines, is that they have to be willing to accept a higher risk of unplanned pregnancy than they were if they're going to use a hormonal method. And with that actually comes a small amount of privilege. So if the woman is in that situation in her life, she may be a little bit more fortunate than somebody else. Definitely when people are complaining of hormonal side effects, usually the patch and the ring be enough to negate them. So if they have side effects on the pill, usually the other combined hormonal methods will cause that. In fact, the most effective non-hormonal method of birth control is a copper IUD. And in my practice where I see a lot of women who are seeking hormone-free options, there's a very high rate of satisfaction with those women because they get a period as they would expect it, they like that they're not using extra hormones, they can rely on it as good birth control. So that really does work well for a lot of women who are looking to get off hormones.

AMT: I want you two stand by if you could please because I want to bring another voice into this conversation. Lindsay Beyerstein is an investigative reporter and documentary filmmaker who specializes in women's health and she's joining us from New York City. Hello.

LIDSAY BEYERSTEIN: Hello.

AMT: Well, as we as we have this conversation, I want to ask you there have been concerns for some time now about the negative side effects of hormonal birth control, from blood clots and high blood pressure, to those who feel it is unnatural. What do you make of the concerns?

LB: I think that there's a strong vein in our culture that idealizes the natural. Over and above the evidence suggests that for some people it's more and aesthetic spiritual, ideological type thing. And I'm really in favour of women controlling their bodies, and their lives, and acting on their own values. But I also think that our fetishization of the natural as a society can blind us to the empirical evidence is about various things that the panelists have been discussing so far in terms of what the side effects actually are, what the pill actually does to your body, the actual risks and benefits both for pregnancy and other health conditions.

AMT: And so tell us a little bit more about that? We heard a little bit from Dr. Costescu, but in terms of avoiding certain cancers, lowering risks.

LB: Well, there's strong evidence, as Dr. Costescu said, that being on the pill from extended period of time can drop your risk of ovarian cancer, which is really great. But there's also equivocal evidence about whether the pill can increase the risk of breast cancer. But on the other hand, it only increases while you're on it. And, obviously, you're taking the pill during your reproductive years. And 95 per cent of cases of breast cancer happen in you post-reproductive years. So the idea that you're really increasing your breast cancer risk by any absolute large amount is a myth.

AMT: You've looked at some of the research behind the app Natural Cycles, what's your assessment on the effectiveness? And what concerns might you still have?

LB: Well for starters, I'm concerned this is all industry-sponsored research. It was published in a real journal, but the fact they designed it, and executed it, and carried it out it reduces potential biases of its own. The other thing is just the reported failure rate of about 7 per cent is really high. As DrCostescu said, you have to have a certain amount of privilege and stability in your life for that not to be a devastating risk. But there are women who are OK with that. And in Canada, you have really good access to abortion, which here in the States you can't take for granted. So it might be a more friendly options for Canadian women because they have stronger reproductive rights than other areas. The other thing that I'm worried about just based on the way the studies are designed is that it may not be representative of a national sample. So basically the studies that I looked at were all designed around people who just joined the app on their own, who are paying to use the app, who were early adopters, who found out about this app before I even knew about it, and you know I work in reproductive health. So there are probably quite a privileged group in other ways too. They’re probably very well-educated, fairly affluent. They have that level of privilege about unintended pregnancy that they could probably whether something like that. So my question is is it going to work as well if this becomes just a household word, something you just buy off iTunes? If an entire nation of women with all their different needs and education levels and cultural backgrounds suddenly try and start using it, I suspect it wouldn't work as well. Because it's not it's not even as simple as just taking your temperature every day. You have to take your temperature. But then if you look at the blog on the Natural Cycles website, there are all these complex fixes where if you get up to pee in the middle of the night, if you work shifts, if you have a glass of wine, all these things that you have to feed back into your practice to get an optimal result.

AMT: OK, well Lindsay Beyerstein, thank you for your thoughts on that. I'll return to my other two guests thank you so much.

LB: Thank you.

AMT: Lindsay Beyerstein, investigative reporter and documentary filmmaker. She specializes in women's health. And she joined us from New York City. Catherine Macnab and Dr. Dustin Costescu, are still with me. I just want to mention that we did ask Health Canada about the Natural Cycles app. And this is part of what they told us. I'm going to quote here, “Health Canada has not approved a license for Natural Cycles. Natural Cycles would qualify as a medical device according to the device definition outlined in the Food and Drugs Act.” I don't know what that really means? Dustin Costescu, does that mean that we haven’t an approved it, but go ahead and use it?

DC: I think what it means is that the approval process for medical devices is of a different rigor than for pharmaceuticals. And often the evidence that one uses is not quite as robust. I think Lindsay brings up some really good points about the fact that in those studies we still can't figure out exactly what women were doing in addition to using the app to prevent pregnancy. And certainly, I would be worried about women only using the app, and maybe not understanding the difference between using condoms or abstaining completely, or using some of the other enabling technologies to help them to use the app. And what we really would need for I think all of us to be reassured as birth control people is data using only the app. And seeing what does the app on its own do? And then how do other methods of birth control that people might use at the same time feed into that and add additional benefit?

AMT: OK. Now I have one more clip as we talk about fertility awareness and other methods. This is Marnina Norys, 49 years old. She's tried many methods. She began taking the pill when she was 16, found it difficult to remember taking it every day. She looked for alternatives.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Eventually, I ended up switching to a progesterone IUD. And then I ended up having it removed, and I would try the Nova Ring, which was brutal. I just immediately started getting really depressed, and was having a hard time with it. And low, low energy. But then I tried to go back to the progesterone, and I put on 10 pounds within a month. So I ended up having that removed, and I had a copper IUD put in, which was kind of awful at first just for the fact that your flow is insane. But ultimately, it was just the best, most comfortable trade-off.

AMT: OK. Catherine Macnab, I'm going to give the last word to you after hearing that clip. What needs to be done to ensure women are making informed decisions about birth control?

CM: Well, I guess it starts with us understanding that we need to move away from the framework that the most effective is the best one for people. And we need to really understand what the priorities are that people face. And then work to fit a birth control method that will work for them. I think what's really interesting with you know in spite of the change that's happening in people's birth control habits, the rate of unplanned pregnancy hasn't changed. So we can see the glass half full on that or empty that that means other methods being used are as effective as what people are achieving on the pill. Or could mean that people think they're moving to better methods, and still were not meeting their needs.

AMT: Well, OK. Thank you both of you for weighing in on all of this. Interesting to hear what you have to say. Thank you.

CM: Thank you

DC: Thanks very much.

AMT: That is Catherine Macnab, executive director of Planned Parenthood Ottawa. She's in our Ottawa studio. Dr. Dustin Costescu is a gynecologist and an assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Let us know what you think. Send us a tweet. We are: @thecurrentcbc. Find us on Facebook. Or go to our website: www.cbc.ca/thecurrent and send us an email on this issue. Let us know what you're thinking about these changes and this app.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

December 19, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This