"My body, my choice" is a privilege for those whose insurance provides coverage for abortions (assuming that their employers don't object), or who can afford to pay the expense out of pocket.
That privilege doesn't extend to women who receive Medicare or Children's Healthcare Insurance Program benefits, the dependents of federal employees, dependents of military service members, Peace Corps volunteers, clients of Indian Health Service, and women in federal prisons, including immigration detention centers. As many as 20 million women are impacted not just by the 1976 Hyde Amendment (which has been reauthorized every year since), but by additional restrictions imposed by Congress in the early 1980s.
On July 10, Congressional Reps. Barbara Lee of California, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, and Diana DeGette of Colorado, introduced H.R.2972, the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2015. Under the EACH Woman Act, access to safe, legal abortions would be restored for women impacted by the Hyde Amendment and other federal restrictions. It is the first time such legislation has been introduced in two decades.
Keep reading for a discussion of some of the reasons this political third rail should be broached.
My Renaissance lit professor brought up a good point about “man caves” last semester and the whole concept of men having a special designated space to escape. And it’s really interesting, cause he called it out as what it is. It’s an appropriation of victimhood by men made to believe that marriage and family are these things weighing down on their happiness. And it’s so true. Cause like… Do yall hear the way some men talk about marriage or even domestic situations with women in general. Married men like to put off that they are somehow miserable with wives and families when actual studies show that married men in society fare better than married women. Depression rates are higher in married women than in married men. And married men make more money & get more promotions than single men. On the flip side married women & women who have children are likely to not get promoted or make as much money as their single and/or childless counter parts. And I guess the reason for that is because corporate America knows that family dynamics have not changed on the grand scale and that women still mostly, even with a partner, do most of the child rearing and domestic duties.
So, again, my question for the man cavers: What exactly are you hiding from?
Wow….just wow smh
I love this.
I never thought about it that way before.
I honestly think that in any house large enough to support such a thing, a couple should each have space set aside mostly for their use, like separate studies/craft rooms, separate bedrooms for optional sleeping apart, etc. (As a light sleeper, I have found this to be an absolute necessity. A sad one, but necessary.)
Separate space is a thing a lot of people feel like they SHOULDN’T have to have, that they should share everything and everything should be shared with them, but that’s not healthy. It works out really well to give each other room, it’s good for everyone, it gives each party a refuge from interaction, and honestly, I think that’s important in a marriage. Having room to just be alone when you need to be. (I am also an introvert, I have no idea what two extroverts would enjoy.)
But the gendered language around “man cave”, and the way it’s treated, like a refuge from femininity, is really icky.
Like, I have a lot of skulls and things made of brass and weird shit in jars. I MIGHT have a room someday that looks like a cross between Gaston’s lodge, complete with taxidermy everywhere, and a set from a horror movie, but … even if I were a cis dude, a dude ALL THE TIME, I wouldn’t feel the need to gender that? Even though it would be coded masculine as a contrast against what I am pretty sure will become a VERY GIRLY HOUSE once my girlfriend moves in (and I am happy about that). It’d be a contrast, not a rebuttal.
Like, I think the term man-cave is pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek and isn’t the problem, and the idea of having personal space is way good, but the phenomenon of guys using such a phrase and such a thing to passively dig at women and femininity IS really gross.
Women share their spaces with men quite readily,and it doesn’t seem to be the same for men.
Or the way men regard women’s spaces. Like women don’t have to tell men “the sewing room/kitchen/scrapbooking nook is off-limits” because FEMALE THINGS go on in there and they feel uncomfortable. They reject women’s spaces, instead of respect them. That makes the man-cave thing feel a little like “no girls allowed.”
If Goldilocks tried three beds, then Momma Bear and Daddy Bear slept separately. Baby Bear is probably the only thing keeping the family together.
You ain’t have to put those people business out like that.
Y’know, the story straight-up tells us why Mama Bear and Papa Bear sleep in separate beds: they have very different needs in terms of mattress firmness, and those fancy responsive mattresses that can be soft on one half and firm on the other hadn’t been invented yet. There’s no shame in valuing your spinal health.
The fact that they’re secure enough to admit that they’re better off in separate beds probably indicates that they have a very healthy relationship built on a foundation of mutual love and respect.
their relationship was just right
Statistically, married couples who sleep in separate beds have reported happier marriages due to having the comfort and space necessary for such an important recuperating mechanism.
I am so miserable when I try to sleep with other people. And my cats get angry and have been known to attempt murders NOT KIDDING.
You have three islands. Divide them into groups of one. The straight island, the gay island, and the lesbian island. The straight island is going to reproduce and keep going strong for millions of generations to come. The gay and lesbian islands will both wipe out in not even one century. This isn’t just about religion or morals, it’s just simple common sense. Being gay is unnatural, and not just because God said so, but because you yourself wouldn’t even be born without a REAL natural man and woman. And no, there is no such thing as a lesbian bone marrow “thing” to have children. That’s a biased fact that came from a lesbian scientist who has false opinions. If it’s not a real penis or vagina, then it’s fucking false and you’re just opinionated by dumb facts. I’m done here. Read over what I said and if you still think that being gay is normal and natural, then I hope you achieve some common sense one day. Bye
Where is this gay island located.. asking for a friend
I just have SO MANY questions. Why were we all separated onto different islands? Did the government sanction this? If so, why? Why didn’t we revolt against this tyrannical government? Where are these islands? How were they chosen? Are the continents of the world abandoned? What kind of resources are on each island? Are they the same or different? Does each island have a right to form its own government or does the government that segregated us still rule? If so, what island do they rule from and how do they communicate with the other two islands? If they can communicate with the other two islands, can all three islands communicate with each other? If the straight people keep reproducing, won’t their island become overpopulated and their resources depleted? Islands only have so much space right? Do straight people stop having gay kids? Isn’t it a fact that, to date, straight people are the largest manufacturers of gay kids? If a gay kid is born on straight island, do they get sent to their appropriate island? Wouldn’t that aid in the re-population of gay and lesbian island? What about people who are attracted to more than one gender? Are they just lost at sea, floating aimlessly? Is the ocean full of listless pansexuals, floating nowhere? Or are they trapped in some sort of purgatory because they don’t fit on any one island? Are there trees on lesbian island? Is it conceivable that if there were, a large group of lesbians could build a boat? Have you ever seen lesbians around timber? If they built a boat, could they travel to gay island? How far apart are the islands? If they could travel to gay island, would they be able to collect semen, return to lesbian island, and repopulate the island? Would they be able to send some of those children to gay island? Do trans people exist in this world? If so, wouldn’t they be able to aid in repopulation? If the lesbians decided to declare war on the heterosexuals, would they be able to reach their island? On the way to heterosexual island, could the lesbians pick up the gays and scoop the floating bisexuals from the sea? If so, would they all be able to go and attack heterosexual island together, wiping out its people’s, stealing its children and taking all its resources? Does this fantasy world get you off at night? Please write back soon!
Okay but I’ve been thinking about the massive backlash over Channing Tatum being cast as Gambit, and just about the Tatum-hate in general, and I’m just gonna say it: I think it’s sexist.
Remember when Channing Tatum first came onto the scene and he was in that Nicholas Sparks movie and then he was in Magic Mike and women were all about the Channing Tatum life? Then you got men saying, “Blegghh Channing Tatum sucks, he’s not a good actor, he’s a dumb jock-type, what about real actors”
I think the main driving force behind that original wave of men saying, “Channing Tatum is stupid, only girls like him because he’s hot, he’s not even a good actor, blah blah blah” was backlash against him because women liked him. It’s the same reason Dirty Dancing is sneered at by film critics and labeled a dumb chick flick, but Saturday Night Fever is classic Serious Cinema.
Channing Tatum isn’t a bad actor, he gave critically acclaimed performances in Foxcatcher and Magic Mike both. He’s not stupid: (That all-female Ghostbusters you’re so psyched about? He’s one of the main producers and backers. He also produced Earth Made of Glass with his wife, which is a major, award-winning documentary about the Rwandan genocide, 21 Jump Street and the sequel, which had massive box office grosses, and Magic Mike was literally based on his life. It was his idea, his story, and he co-wrote). He’s not an idiot by any means at all, and the fact that he has ADD and severe dyslexia make the whole “stupid buff guy” stereotype people associate with him kinda sketchy.
Anyway, after men started lashing out against him because he was popular with women (and Lord forbid something women like be considered quality), then you got women saying, “Well, I just don’t think Channing Tatum is attractive.” or “I don’t like Channing Tatum, I like ~real actors~” and it was all permeated with an underlayer of “…not like those dumb, bimbo other girls.” It’s the same shit as, “I just don’t get along with women, I get along with boys better.” It’s a subtle, maybe even unconscious way of saying, “I think like you, boys, please accept me. I’m better than those girls, please don’t treat me the way you treat them.”
TL;DR: Channing Tatum is a recovering alcoholic and former sex worker with ADD and severe dyslexia who is frequently unfairly lambasted just because he has the audacity to be popular with women.
here’s a gif of him feeding a puppy soup. please examine your life choices.
a) channing tatum seems like a sweetheart and yeah, actually he is a good actor so anyone being bitchy can shove it
Why on Earth would you assume that as soon as someone reaches subsistence wages that they would just stop working. You know people want things beyond just “not dying” right?
I mean, that argument is directly contradicted by the fact that so many people have busted their asses to get raises / promotions / better-paying jobs despite already making enough money to subsist on.
Fangirls everywhere face a common frustration. Call it what you like, there’s a name for almost every fandom — Marvel has the Chrises Conundrum, Sherlockians have the Cumberbatch Conundrum, Whovians have the Capaldi Conundrum. In any fandom based on visual media, fangirls are attacked because of the way the female gaze is misunderstood and misrepresented.
The female gaze is often assumed to be singularly focused on male objectification, to the exclusion of anything else. As a result, women are assumed to either be sexual beings who are present solely to gaze at male bodies, or intellectual beings capable of understanding and appreciating media. Unlike men, we are not allowed to be both at the same time.
This post has been simmering for a while. Some fanboys were just so damn gleeful about Capaldi being cast, and not because they were excited to see him as the Doctor. They were desperately hoping that he would “drive out the fangirls.” Because obviously, we’re only here to see hot guys play the Doctor.
And yeah, that type of attitude is narrow-minded misogynistic bullshit. Women have been fans of Doctor Who since the beginning and we’re here for more than just to stare at guys onscreen.
But what’s really been gnawing at me is the blatant double standard for how men and women are allowed to appreciate the actors in franchises we love.
Men are allowed to ogle and objectify female characters all they like without having anyone question whether they are “real fans”. They objectify actresses (often in graphic detail), openly display images of those actresses while scantily clad and seductively posed, and never once have anyone question their knowledge of a franchise or the legitimacy of their fan credentials.
But as soon as a girl says she thinks David Tennant is kind of hot, suddenly she’s just a silly fangirl who is obviously not a serious fan of Doctor Who. Men talking about how hot Billie Piper is are just bros being bros, but girls talking about how hot Matt Smith is are examples of insufferable squee that is destroying the fandom.
This double standard is infuriating. And it shows the blatant disrespect some people have for female fans.
from the amazing heyatleastitsnotcancer.tumblr.com
[picture of a Siamese cat’s head against a triangle-sectioned background with many shades of blue. Top line of text reads: What I’m worried about: Being in agony the rest of my life || Bottom line of text reads: What I’m not worried about: Getting addicted to prescription pain meds]
Honestly? This. I’ll take the chance to escape having NO quality of life whatsoever.
“The Trump supporters and proto-Trump supporters I know are upset by things like having to listen to Spanish-language messages on customer service lines, not being able to call women “chicks” without someone frowning at them, and having to stop telling racist jokes at work. That’s what “political correctness” is code for: having to worry about the sensitivities of people who were invisible or submissive not that very long ago.”
a minimum of 40-60 girls were dress coded at my school this morning, but not even ONE male was. a percentage of those girls weren’t able to have a change of clothes delivered to them by a parent and were forced to miss a number of final exams. no one at our school has ever been particularly fond of the dress code, however this is taking it too far. if you’ve successfully fought/know someone who successfully fought against dress code please help us by informing us on how to go about ridding our school of this sexist code. honestly, calling a student a skank???? NOT OKAY. we live in Southern California, and right now our weather averages about 100°F (roughly 38°C) and girls are expected to wear long pants. girls were FORCED to miss FINAL EXAMS just because what they were wearing was deemed “distracting”. a large portion of these girls proved they were not breaking dress code (no shorter than four inches above the knee) by measuring with a ruler, but were not released. please help spread this and let us know if there’s any way to fight this without causing us more trouble!
At ThinkProgress, Scott Keyes compiles a list of super-duper pro-gun Republicans that think Americans should be able to carry loaded guns everywhere, all the time but have barred guns from places or events where they themselves might be appearing. For a few examples:
George W. Bush Presidential Library- Though Bush was a strong proponent of gun rights, his presidential library in Dallas demands that all visitors leave their firearms at home. According to a sign posted outside, guns are prohibited “For the security of our visitors, staff and facility.”
I can see that. The George W. Bush Presidential Library is likely to stir up strong emotions in people, emotions like "oh right, I remember that" and "aren't there supposed to be books here?"
Republican Conventions- Firearms were banned at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, even as delegates inside passed language into the party platform affirming that Republicans “acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense.” State Republican conventions also regularly forbid guns.
I can see that, too. Wait, no I can't. If you can't trust actual Republican delegates with guns, who can you trust? If I can't go to a fast-food restaurant without braving a possible gauntlet of proud patriots looking to defend themselves from invisible Russian hordes, you should at least trust those same folks to protect your most Important Party Leaders.
Presidential Campaign Stops- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), a prominent gun advocate who has signed legislation expanding gun rights, prohibited “guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, selfie-sticks, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size” from his presidential campaign kick-off event.
That one's not fair at all. You can't claim Scott Walker has an opinion on gun rights just because he's previously stated such things or signed legislation to that effect. You can't prove he even knows what a "gun" is, at least not until the focus group results come back.
The granddaddy of them all, of course, is Congress. No, Congress does not want you to bring your guns. No, not even after Republicans took back control of both legislative bodies, and no, there's no future plans to do it either. This is because Republican politicians do not actually believe that everyone carrying loaded guns around would be "safer" than not allowing that thing, at least not when it's their own necks on the line. A gun in every classroom, though? Now that's something they can get behind.
“Homelessness has always been more a crisis of empathy and imagination than one of sheer economics. Governments spend millions each year on shelters, health care and other forms of triage for the homeless, but simply giving people homes turns out to be far cheaper, according to research from the University of Washington in 2009. Preventing a fire always requires less water than extinguishing it once it’s burning.”
“How can you really tell the story of a culture when you don’t include all the voices within the culture? Otherwise, it’s just a history, and the story, of power.”
- “Frida Kahlo,” alias of a member of the Guerrilla Girls, the feminist artist activist collective that began in the mid-80s. She addresses the lack of diversity in major metropolitan art collections (via camewiththeframe)
“People from the UK moving abroad to pursue their career or financial interests, meanwhile, are “expats”, never emigrants or migrants.
The language we hear in what passes for a national conversation on migration has become as debased as most of the arguments, until the very word “migrants” is toxic, used to frighten us by conjuring up images of a “swarm” (as David Cameron put it) massing at our borders, threatening our way of life.
As Prof Alexander Betts, director of the refugee studies centre at Oxford University, says: “Words that convey an exaggerated sense of threat can fuel anti-immigration sentiment and a climate of intolerance and xenophobia.”
There’s nothing new in this. Fifteen years ago the Conservatives were getting worked up about “bogus asylum seekers”. This was nonsense: you are either an asylum seeker or you aren’t. But that wasn’t the point – which was, rather than to demonstrate the traditional British values of compassion and fairness to those seeking refuge here, to denigrate them for crude political purposes.
This is the background against which Al Jazeera English has announced it will no longer use the word “migrants” but “refugees”, in the context of desperate people trying to enter Europe by the Mediterranean.”
CHICAGO—Explaining that the sense of unease she felt walking to and from her home had declined markedly over the years, Humboldt Park resident Kirsten Healy expressed her disappointment to reporters Thursday that her neighborhood was becoming too safe for her family to afford. “When we first moved in seven years ago, we didn’t even feel like we could leave the house after dark, which was great for a family on a limited budget,” said Healy, who noted that, given how little she lies awake these days worrying about a potential home invasion or assault, she can tell her family will soon be priced out of their apartment. “The way things are going, we won’t even feel unsafe walking the few blocks to the grocery store in a year or two—I just don’t think we have the kind of money for that. We’d love to ...
I used to be a clinical coder in one of the largest maternity hospitals in Scotland. It was my job to record ICD-10 codes for every procedure and diagnosis based on reading the hospital notes.
The woman who trained me to do my job was less than competent. She told me that the bosses had complained that too many patients were being marked “unknown” for whether they smoked or not, and she interpreted this to mean “mark everyone as a non-smoker unless it was somehow obvious they were a smoker.” (The bosses should have been talking to the midwives who filled out the forms, not the coders, but whatever.) I decided her way was dishonest and wrong, so I took the time to dig deeper in the notes to see if the patients were smokers or not and reported it accordingly.
About a year after I started doing that job, I saw a news report stating that for some unknown reason, more women in Scotland were continuing to smoke throughout their pregnancies than before. It was bullshit. The smoking rates had not changed. It’s just that it was being reported more honestly at one of the major hospitals, and that was enough to make it look like a significant statistical shift nation-wide.
Around 2007, they changed the coding rules on co-morbidity. We were told to report “obesity” as a co-morbidity above hypertension and congenital disorders and a bunch of other serious diseases. So the rate of reporting of obesity went up, but there were no more fat people than there were before. We were just told that fatness had to be reported every single time a fat person was in the hospital, regardless of what other reasons they might be there.
Obesity statistics are largely bullshit. The statistical reporting has been manipulated to demonize fat people and mark every medical problem a fat person has as “obesity-related”. There has not been an increase in obesity-related illnesses. There has been an increase in relating illnesses to obesity, whether they are connected or not.
Yeah we statisticians have a way of making the numbers say literally whatever the fuck we want them to say
I can give you definitive “proof” that the number of priests in a town directly predicts the number of alcoholics in the same town. My whole report will convince you priests cause alcoholism. (You know what it really is? More priests mean a town is growing larger. A larger town has more people. More people means some of those people will be alcoholics. Larger population means more alcoholics just based on the likelihood of any individual becoming an alcoholic. Priests have nothing to do with it).
Read your reports carefully cause most of us are in business hoping that you won’t.
.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” - Mark Twain
IMO, statistics don’t lie. People do, whether on purpose or not, in the creation and interpretation. A course on differentiation between causation and correlation, in this day and age, could be as useful as one on First Aid & CPR (in which you will be taught to identify the cause of injury/trauma, as well as maneuver/procedure success & survival rates)
I think you misunderstand the line. Statistics is a tool that it’s really really easy to lie with. Very few people understand what even the simplest correlations and rates mean.
If out of one hundred thin people, one thin person has an infected squeedlyspooch, and our of one hundred fat people two fat people have infected squeedlyspooches, then there’s a positive correlation between fat and squeedlyspoochosis.
Now suddenly a disease that few people, either thin or fat get, but suddenly in the reporting it’s A Fat Person’s Disease, and fat people are guaranteed to get it, because the reporting says, completely truthfully, that fat people are 100% more likely to have infections of the squeedlyspooch. That’s not a lie. That’s the actual statistic. But most people don’t understand what the statistic, which is a statistical fact means.
Lie, damned lies, and statistics – the last of which don’t even require you to say anything that’s untrue.
-mg
And when doctors begin to apply the findings you might see fat patients being told to lose weight to see if their infected squeedlyspooch clears up while thin patients get medication and are cured immediately. Follow-up studies could then accurately confirm squeedlyspoochosis is found more often in fat people because their cases would not be treated as effectively as the thin people.
While MadGastronomer’s wonderfully named malady is not a real problem I imagine the effect does occur for some of the illnesses reportedly linked to fat bodies.
Yup.
We’ve seen doctors tell us to lose weight to cure bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, pink eye, tonsillitis, cancer, asthma, and a whole host of diseases that cause weight gain themselves.
I’m glad you like squeedlyspoochosis. Like Gaz, I have a squeedlyspooch.
-MG
Truth bombs
This thread is the most succinct, clear explanation for why fat hatred in doctors leads to illness and death that I have come across.
(This kind of bias is not limited to thin/fat, people do this with all sorts of things. We’d run into this in medical advocacy, that as a medad you don’t pre-decide which options will be appealing to a survivor, you offer all of them to every survivor, you don’t think ‘well they’re in college so they obviously won’t want this’ or 'they’re homeless so they’ll definitely want to hear about X but not Y’. Every option offered to every survivor. Because you don’t know what’s best, the survivor does. But it’s surprising in the moment how that old garbage still kicks in, tells you “oh it’d be faster to not mention these 3 things, they’re in distress, wrap it up faster…” NO. It feels 'helpful’, weirdly, that voice, that’s how sick it is. 'Helping’ someone by denying them information about all the choices available to them! But that’s how it can go. That’s the bias kicking in, trying to take away from certain people. We’ve gotta watch ourselves, always.)
OK, so, I know my completely visceral GAH reaction to the concept of raw milk has a lot to do with my whole suburban/urban upbringing, and my life-long issue with "I can only enjoy drinking milk if I don't think about drinking it" and oh, yeah, that year I lived in Pakistan where the choices were dry milk, yak milk, or my mom's unholy combination of the two....
I had a point there. Raw milk is yucky. Don't drink it. It could have stuff in it.
Maybe you like the taste of raw milk. (That’s more likely because it’s grass-fed than because it’s raw, but okay.) But if you’re chasing after health benefits in raw milk, think again.
"My body, my choice" is a privilege for those whose insurance provides coverage for abortions (assuming that their employers don't object), or who can afford to pay the expense out of pocket.
At ThinkProgress, Scott Keyes compiles a list of super-duper pro-gun Republicans that think Americans should be able to carry loaded guns everywhere, all the time but have barred guns from places or events where they themselves might be appearing. For a few examples:
