From UN Women (United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women)*, the North American factsheet from the recently released report "Progress of the World's Women":
http://progress.unwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EN-Factsheet-North-America-Progress-of-the-Worlds-Women.pdf
There are some interesting facts here about the still present wage gap, maternity leave, rape and violence, female incarceration, etc. Did you know that black women in the U.S. earn an average of 38% less than white males? And Latina women earn an average of 48% less than white males. Also, the report finds that U.S. jurors are more likely to question the credibility of black and Latina women in rape cases and the report brings to light the high instances of rape among Native American women.
*http://www.unwomen.org/
Complete report: http://progress.unwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EN-Summary-Progress-of-the-Worlds-Women1.pdf
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Just when you thought we had moved beyond the 1950s
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/06/harrods_retail_dress_code_makeup/index.html
I thought that was bad.
Then I read this and I was filled with even more righteous feminist ire:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2011282/Melanie-Stark-Harrods-row-If-refuse-lippy-firm-job.html#ixzz1RLpbZ9ch
Are you fucking kidding me?!
Are you FUCKING kidding me?!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!!
Dear Liz Jones, who the hell do you think you are?!
From her article (particularly abhorent parts in boldface):
Third, a sloppy dress code leads to a sloppy attitude. An unmade-up face tells me you find it hard to get up early enough to attend to your maquillage.
This is not sexist: I don't want to buy anything from a man who hasn't bothered to shave either. It's simply to do with attitude.
Women who feel no compunction to improve what nature bestowed upon them are, in my experience, arrogant, lazy or deluded, and frequently all three.
This is especially true in the service industry, where a bare face is no more acceptable than a dentist with halitosis. It tells me that a woman doesn't really care what others think of her.
Wearing even a little make-up shows respect to others, demonstrating on the outside that you are professional, a stickler for detail, someone who doesn't cut corners.But there is one aspect of Ms Stark's case that I do find puzzling: why does any intelligent women (whatever her workplace) need a manual to tell them what is or isn't acceptable. Surely common sense should do?
Also, if Ms. Jones really wanted to prove her point, she shouldn't have accompanied the article with two photos of a bare-faced Ms. Stark, who is quite a beautiful woman just as she is. This does not back up Ms. Jones' case.
Liz Jones, you are a retarded Uncle Tom.
Of course, it is the Daily Mail, so what did I really expect?
I thought that was bad.
Then I read this and I was filled with even more righteous feminist ire:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2011282/Melanie-Stark-Harrods-row-If-refuse-lippy-firm-job.html#ixzz1RLpbZ9ch
Are you fucking kidding me?!
Are you FUCKING kidding me?!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!!
Dear Liz Jones, who the hell do you think you are?!
From her article (particularly abhorent parts in boldface):
Third, a sloppy dress code leads to a sloppy attitude. An unmade-up face tells me you find it hard to get up early enough to attend to your maquillage.
This is not sexist: I don't want to buy anything from a man who hasn't bothered to shave either. It's simply to do with attitude.
Women who feel no compunction to improve what nature bestowed upon them are, in my experience, arrogant, lazy or deluded, and frequently all three.
This is especially true in the service industry, where a bare face is no more acceptable than a dentist with halitosis. It tells me that a woman doesn't really care what others think of her.
Wearing even a little make-up shows respect to others, demonstrating on the outside that you are professional, a stickler for detail, someone who doesn't cut corners.But there is one aspect of Ms Stark's case that I do find puzzling: why does any intelligent women (whatever her workplace) need a manual to tell them what is or isn't acceptable. Surely common sense should do?
Also, if Ms. Jones really wanted to prove her point, she shouldn't have accompanied the article with two photos of a bare-faced Ms. Stark, who is quite a beautiful woman just as she is. This does not back up Ms. Jones' case.
Liz Jones, you are a retarded Uncle Tom.
Of course, it is the Daily Mail, so what did I really expect?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The corporate pill mill and my experience with antidepressant meds.
http://www.alternet.org/health/151513/big_pharma%27s_latest_shady_ploy_to_sell_depression_drugs_that_people_may_not_need_/?page=entire
To imply that depression is not a real and serious mental health issue for some of us is a mistake. To imply that antidepressant medication doesn't work or only works through "the placebo effect" or is a "quick fix" for a bad mood comes off as ignorant and insulting to those of us who have had to fight for years with this wretched disorder and HAVE been helped by medication.
That being said, are prescription drugs (particularly drugs related to the treatment of disorders such as depression and ADHD) overprescribed? I would say yes. Are there people who have been described antidepressants who perhaps don't need them? Sure there are. Are there harmful and dangerous drugs on the market that are being prescribed to people who are ignorant of the side effects and repercussions of such medication? I'll be the first one to agree with that.
But some drugs do work. And some people need medication. Major depressive disorder is caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain such as serotonin and norepinephrine and the way the brain processes these chemicals. Sometimes antidepressants can help balance things out, enabling the person to be able to live some semblance of a normal life.
There are good drugs and bad drugs. Drug companies are out to make a profit and for the most part they don't really care what happens in the long term. They peddle new medications (which are often just reformulations of existing medications) to physicians promising incentives if they'll prescribe them.
Take for example the fraternal twins of antidepressants Pristiq and Effexor, drugs of which I've had personal experience. Effexor (venlafaxine) was formulated by Wyeth (part of Pfizer) as an SNRI (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor). It is available in doses from 25mg up to 150mg.
About the time the patent on Effexor was due to expire (thus allowing generic versions to enter the market), Wyeth formulated a new drug they called Pristiq or desvenlafaxine. Essentially Pristiq is a reformulation of Effexor or venlafaxine, the main difference being the way the body metabolizes the drug. Pristiq is essentially the active metabolite of Effexor and basically Effexor is metabolized by the body into desvenlafaxine anyway after it's taken, so all Pristiq does is just eliminate a step in that process. Pristiq is available in 50mg and 100mg tablets. There is no equivalency in dosage between Effexor and Pristiq, meaning that 50mg of Pristiq does not equal 50mg of Effexor.
So why two drugs that basically do the same thing? Because Wyeth/Pfizer wanted to recoup the money they would lose when their overpriced antidepressant went generic. It's that simple.
It was around the time that Pristiq entered the market that I visited a psychiatrist to re-evaluate my depression treatment. I had been taking Effexor for awhile but felt that it wasn't really helping enough and I was also concerned about the heinous withdrawal side effects*. My psychiatrist's answer was to transition me over to Pristiq- this brand new drug that would be better for me than Effexor because my body would metabolize it differently. Now, I'm in my early twenties at this time and know nothing about pharmacology. I grew up believing that doctor had your best interests at heart and that when it came to medication you could trust their judgment so I figured that if this was what she was recommending, it was the way to go.
So, leaving the office with about 5 sample packs (I didn't have insurance) of this promising new drug, I switched over to Pristiq after having taken 150mg of Effexor daily for I don't even remember how long. Given that there's no dosage equivalency between the two medications (very clever, Wyeth), the changeover was rocky and I experienced some symptoms of withdrawal which I slugged through. Now I did think the Pristiq helped at the time, but knowing what I know now (given that Pristiq is essentially the same drug as Effexor), it may have been coincidence or it may have been the proverbial "placebo effect". However, I still had symptoms, so a few months later I was prescribed Wellbutrin (buproprion) in addition to the Pristiq. That actually did help- after a couple of weeks of physical and mental hell adjusting to the drug.
I tell you all this, because I look back and think that I was essentially sold a bill of goods. Not that I think my doctor did it malevolently, but did she have some kind of incentive to change my medication to this brand new drug? Probably. And hey, it was practically the same med anyway, so victimless crime, right?
I wish I had known better.
It's probably been about two or three years since the Great AD Switchover and I'm still on 100mg of Pristiq a day. However, as of about 2 weeks ago, spurred partially by the fact that I was losing my Rx coverage and partially by the fact that the more I thought about this drug I was taking (side effects, discontinuation, etc), the more I began to distrust that Pristiq was effective or safe. After all, I had improved far more with Wellbutrin than I ever did with the venlafaxine twins.
So... I decided to wean myself off of Pristiq. I am doing this slowly and without my psychiatrist's supervision or knowledge. I don't really want to try to justify myself to the people who hocked Pristiq at me in the first place and I don't really want to be on any other pills. My method of weaning simply consists of cutting my pills. Every night when I take my pill, I cut a little sliver off with a knife, over time I'll cut off progressively larger and larger slivers until I'm able to function without the medication altogether. Now, a lot of the information I've read discourages cutting your pills since they're supposedly covered with a time release coating, but I've been doing this for a little over a week thus far and I'm down to 2/3 of a 100mg Pristiq nightly with no noticeable side effects. So far so good, and every night when I cut my pill I get excited thinking about the day when I won't be dependent on this god-awful drug anymore.
I'm not really worried about what I'm doing because I figure if the withdrawal gets to be too much or I stop the meds and realize I mentally felt better with them, I can always begin taking them again, considering that the doctor will keep prescribing them as long as I pretend to be taking them. I'm prepared for some discomfort and don't expect not to feel any withdrawal, but cannabis has always proven effective in quelling the side effects such as nausea, headache, severe mood swings, etc. I plan to stay on the Wellbutrin at least for awhile, since I'm pretty happy with what it does and don't have the worries about side effects and discontinuation that I do with desvenlafaxine.
Moral of the story? Don't ever take a medication without researching it first. Even if you trust your physician. Or maybe the real moral of the story is that you can't always trust medical professionals to have your best interests at heart, even if you are paying them to do so.
Drug dependence comes in many forms. The drug companies have realized they can profit off this. Internetland is filled with accounts of other people who are facing the same struggles with des/venlafaxine as me. I don't believe that drug companies and physicians aren't aware of the hellish side effects of this drug, but as long as there is money to be made they can't be trusted to give a shit.
*Heinous withdrawal side effects for me specifically have been nausea, headache, dizzyness, weakness, tremor, dry mouth, extreme lethargy and sleepiness, intestinal upset (to put it nicely), INTENSE mood swings, and this lovely little thing we venlafaxine dependents call "brain shivers". These effects usually begin at approx the 5 hour mark, intensify quickly, and they usually occur simultaneously, although the brain shivers alone are enough to send me running back to that little orangey-brown tablet.
To imply that depression is not a real and serious mental health issue for some of us is a mistake. To imply that antidepressant medication doesn't work or only works through "the placebo effect" or is a "quick fix" for a bad mood comes off as ignorant and insulting to those of us who have had to fight for years with this wretched disorder and HAVE been helped by medication.
That being said, are prescription drugs (particularly drugs related to the treatment of disorders such as depression and ADHD) overprescribed? I would say yes. Are there people who have been described antidepressants who perhaps don't need them? Sure there are. Are there harmful and dangerous drugs on the market that are being prescribed to people who are ignorant of the side effects and repercussions of such medication? I'll be the first one to agree with that.
But some drugs do work. And some people need medication. Major depressive disorder is caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain such as serotonin and norepinephrine and the way the brain processes these chemicals. Sometimes antidepressants can help balance things out, enabling the person to be able to live some semblance of a normal life.
There are good drugs and bad drugs. Drug companies are out to make a profit and for the most part they don't really care what happens in the long term. They peddle new medications (which are often just reformulations of existing medications) to physicians promising incentives if they'll prescribe them.
Take for example the fraternal twins of antidepressants Pristiq and Effexor, drugs of which I've had personal experience. Effexor (venlafaxine) was formulated by Wyeth (part of Pfizer) as an SNRI (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor). It is available in doses from 25mg up to 150mg.
About the time the patent on Effexor was due to expire (thus allowing generic versions to enter the market), Wyeth formulated a new drug they called Pristiq or desvenlafaxine. Essentially Pristiq is a reformulation of Effexor or venlafaxine, the main difference being the way the body metabolizes the drug. Pristiq is essentially the active metabolite of Effexor and basically Effexor is metabolized by the body into desvenlafaxine anyway after it's taken, so all Pristiq does is just eliminate a step in that process. Pristiq is available in 50mg and 100mg tablets. There is no equivalency in dosage between Effexor and Pristiq, meaning that 50mg of Pristiq does not equal 50mg of Effexor.
So why two drugs that basically do the same thing? Because Wyeth/Pfizer wanted to recoup the money they would lose when their overpriced antidepressant went generic. It's that simple.
It was around the time that Pristiq entered the market that I visited a psychiatrist to re-evaluate my depression treatment. I had been taking Effexor for awhile but felt that it wasn't really helping enough and I was also concerned about the heinous withdrawal side effects*. My psychiatrist's answer was to transition me over to Pristiq- this brand new drug that would be better for me than Effexor because my body would metabolize it differently. Now, I'm in my early twenties at this time and know nothing about pharmacology. I grew up believing that doctor had your best interests at heart and that when it came to medication you could trust their judgment so I figured that if this was what she was recommending, it was the way to go.
So, leaving the office with about 5 sample packs (I didn't have insurance) of this promising new drug, I switched over to Pristiq after having taken 150mg of Effexor daily for I don't even remember how long. Given that there's no dosage equivalency between the two medications (very clever, Wyeth), the changeover was rocky and I experienced some symptoms of withdrawal which I slugged through. Now I did think the Pristiq helped at the time, but knowing what I know now (given that Pristiq is essentially the same drug as Effexor), it may have been coincidence or it may have been the proverbial "placebo effect". However, I still had symptoms, so a few months later I was prescribed Wellbutrin (buproprion) in addition to the Pristiq. That actually did help- after a couple of weeks of physical and mental hell adjusting to the drug.
I tell you all this, because I look back and think that I was essentially sold a bill of goods. Not that I think my doctor did it malevolently, but did she have some kind of incentive to change my medication to this brand new drug? Probably. And hey, it was practically the same med anyway, so victimless crime, right?
I wish I had known better.
It's probably been about two or three years since the Great AD Switchover and I'm still on 100mg of Pristiq a day. However, as of about 2 weeks ago, spurred partially by the fact that I was losing my Rx coverage and partially by the fact that the more I thought about this drug I was taking (side effects, discontinuation, etc), the more I began to distrust that Pristiq was effective or safe. After all, I had improved far more with Wellbutrin than I ever did with the venlafaxine twins.
So... I decided to wean myself off of Pristiq. I am doing this slowly and without my psychiatrist's supervision or knowledge. I don't really want to try to justify myself to the people who hocked Pristiq at me in the first place and I don't really want to be on any other pills. My method of weaning simply consists of cutting my pills. Every night when I take my pill, I cut a little sliver off with a knife, over time I'll cut off progressively larger and larger slivers until I'm able to function without the medication altogether. Now, a lot of the information I've read discourages cutting your pills since they're supposedly covered with a time release coating, but I've been doing this for a little over a week thus far and I'm down to 2/3 of a 100mg Pristiq nightly with no noticeable side effects. So far so good, and every night when I cut my pill I get excited thinking about the day when I won't be dependent on this god-awful drug anymore.
I'm not really worried about what I'm doing because I figure if the withdrawal gets to be too much or I stop the meds and realize I mentally felt better with them, I can always begin taking them again, considering that the doctor will keep prescribing them as long as I pretend to be taking them. I'm prepared for some discomfort and don't expect not to feel any withdrawal, but cannabis has always proven effective in quelling the side effects such as nausea, headache, severe mood swings, etc. I plan to stay on the Wellbutrin at least for awhile, since I'm pretty happy with what it does and don't have the worries about side effects and discontinuation that I do with desvenlafaxine.
Moral of the story? Don't ever take a medication without researching it first. Even if you trust your physician. Or maybe the real moral of the story is that you can't always trust medical professionals to have your best interests at heart, even if you are paying them to do so.
Drug dependence comes in many forms. The drug companies have realized they can profit off this. Internetland is filled with accounts of other people who are facing the same struggles with des/venlafaxine as me. I don't believe that drug companies and physicians aren't aware of the hellish side effects of this drug, but as long as there is money to be made they can't be trusted to give a shit.
*Heinous withdrawal side effects for me specifically have been nausea, headache, dizzyness, weakness, tremor, dry mouth, extreme lethargy and sleepiness, intestinal upset (to put it nicely), INTENSE mood swings, and this lovely little thing we venlafaxine dependents call "brain shivers". These effects usually begin at approx the 5 hour mark, intensify quickly, and they usually occur simultaneously, although the brain shivers alone are enough to send me running back to that little orangey-brown tablet.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Another rant by this pissed-off feminist
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/151504/900_anti-woman_laws_to_appease_conservative_extremists_--_is_abortion_becoming_legal_in_name_only/
How about instead of narrowly enforcing dogmatic and patriarchal views on women, anti-choice supporters worked toward creating a world in which women are less likely to NEED to have abortions?
Ways to do this include:
Ensuring comprehensive sex education for middle and high school students.
Easy and anonymous access to safe, effective, and affordable contraception.
-Availability of free contraception (condoms, sponges, Plan B) in school clinics, discreetly and with no questions asked
-Increased availability of The Pill and other contraceptive methods: lower cost, availability without prescription
More safe and effective contraception options.
-Formulation of contraception for men. C'mon... if scientists can formulate not just one, but several different pills to give a man an erection, surely someone, somewhere could figure out male fertility. Of course, I could speculate on why this hasn't happened, but that's a topic for another day.
-Development of more contraceptive options for women. Sure, women have more contraceptive options today than thirty or forty years ago, but really a lot of these are just variations on the same method; essentially it's either hormones, a barrier method, or nothing, and for some women, none of these options are particularly viable nor desirable. Let me elaborate:
-The Pill, Patch, NuvaRing, Plan B etc, alters a woman's natural hormone levels and often reduces her
desire for sex, defeating the purpose of birth control in the first place. Also, some women don't
particularly care for the idea of screwing with their hormones.
-Condoms can break and some people are allergic to spermicide and latex. Additionally condoms
decrease sensation and enjoyment of sex. Put on a latex glove and note how much you can feel through
it. (Needless to say, condoms are your first and only line of defense against STIs and HIV.)
-Diaphragms, sponges: again, spermicide allergies.
-IUDs: risks of uterine puncture, dislodgment of device, breakthrough bleeding and increased pain and
bleeding with menstruation. Medical procedure.
-DepoProvera
-Tubal ligation (female sterilization): permanent, doctors usually won't perform procedure on younger
women
-Vasectomy: many men unwilling to get procedure, costly
-Natural family planning: fertility awareness method, rhythm method, "pulling out": not always reliable,
requires intense monitoring of body temperature, cycles, must abstain from sex during ovulation (when
most women probably want sex the most), man forgets or "forgets" or doesn't pull out in time.
-Abstinence: this doesn't count! Human beings want to have sex. It's a part of life. It's part of being a
developed, functional adult. You can't expect people to just not have sex. It's natural, it's part of our
biological instinct as a human mammal. You can tell teens not to have sex until you're blue in the face,
but guess what? Teenagers are still going to have sex if they want. Hasn't this been proven time and time
again? Abstinence only education and denying birth control options to teenagers isn't going to stop
anyone, but what it WILL do is increase the instance of sexually transmitted infections if teens don't have
the tools and education to protect themselves and take charge of their own health. Really, widespread
application of abstinence-only sex education is a PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT.
No woman WANTS to have an abortion. Abortion is a painful, uncomfortable, and costly procedure. Ask any woman if she wants a vacuum stuck up her vagina. Ask any woman if she wants the severe cramps, pain, and heavy bleeding that come with taking mifepristone (the "abortion pill"). No woman willingly puts herself through that. No woman wants to be in the position of having to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Even if abortion were entirely outlawed tomorrow, women would still have abortions. They would just have them clandestinely and under unsterile unsafe circumstances where the risk of infections, complications, and death are high. Outlawing abortion aint gonna stop a damn thing. You think women never tried to end an unwanted pregnancy before Roe v. Wade came along? Banning abortion will just equal more women dying from unsafe "back-alley" abortions. Anti-abortion advocates think they're saving lives when really they're doing the exact opposite... or is it really that the woman's life just isn't important enough?
And speaking of, it is absolutely DISGUSTING that there are some people who value what they term "potential life" over an actual mature living, breathing, existing human being. Whether they realize it or not, by giving precedence to "potential life" over an actual walking, talking, thinking, feeling, learning, loving human being, the anti-choice set is essentially telling women that their only value is as a walking womb.
And clearly they seem to think women are too stupid to know what's best for them, so they need strangers to tell them. No, it's not okay to have an abortion if you can't afford to provide for a baby, if you can't afford prenatal care, if you have no one to support you during your pregnancy or after. No, it's not okay to have an abortion to save your own life or health or sanity- that's just not important. No, it's not okay to have an abortion if you were raped- clearly that's your fault so you should live with the consequences.
This is not okay. Let me say it again. THIS IS NOT OKAY. Anti-choice supporters say they want to create a culture that celebrates life- but I guess not the lives of women, since it seems to be okay for women to be in pain, to die, to live with the consequences of choices they weren't allowed to make all for the cause of "potential life".
And where does it end? If anti-choice advocates have their way and abortion is outlawed to preserve "potential life", will their next crusade be to outlaw birth control since that prevents "potential life"? With that logic I guess women should be pregnant as much as possible, since shedding an egg every month through menstruation is also preventing "potential life". And I'm not even sure that most anti-choicers would be okay with that.
The anti-choice movement says that it cares about the lives of women. Well, if anti-choicers REALLY care about the lives of women, maybe they should stop trying to legislate private, personal, life choices and put their energy to use in a way that really would save the lives of women. Rape, female genital mutilation, sex slavery are all rampant in our world. Imagine if anti-choice activists devoted even half the energy to stopping these attrocities as they do to telling women how to live their lives... what an impact THAT would have.
How about instead of narrowly enforcing dogmatic and patriarchal views on women, anti-choice supporters worked toward creating a world in which women are less likely to NEED to have abortions?
Ways to do this include:
Ensuring comprehensive sex education for middle and high school students.
Easy and anonymous access to safe, effective, and affordable contraception.
-Availability of free contraception (condoms, sponges, Plan B) in school clinics, discreetly and with no questions asked
-Increased availability of The Pill and other contraceptive methods: lower cost, availability without prescription
More safe and effective contraception options.
-Formulation of contraception for men. C'mon... if scientists can formulate not just one, but several different pills to give a man an erection, surely someone, somewhere could figure out male fertility. Of course, I could speculate on why this hasn't happened, but that's a topic for another day.
-Development of more contraceptive options for women. Sure, women have more contraceptive options today than thirty or forty years ago, but really a lot of these are just variations on the same method; essentially it's either hormones, a barrier method, or nothing, and for some women, none of these options are particularly viable nor desirable. Let me elaborate:
-The Pill, Patch, NuvaRing, Plan B etc, alters a woman's natural hormone levels and often reduces her
desire for sex, defeating the purpose of birth control in the first place. Also, some women don't
particularly care for the idea of screwing with their hormones.
-Condoms can break and some people are allergic to spermicide and latex. Additionally condoms
decrease sensation and enjoyment of sex. Put on a latex glove and note how much you can feel through
it. (Needless to say, condoms are your first and only line of defense against STIs and HIV.)
-Diaphragms, sponges: again, spermicide allergies.
-IUDs: risks of uterine puncture, dislodgment of device, breakthrough bleeding and increased pain and
bleeding with menstruation. Medical procedure.
-DepoProvera
-Tubal ligation (female sterilization): permanent, doctors usually won't perform procedure on younger
women
-Vasectomy: many men unwilling to get procedure, costly
-Natural family planning: fertility awareness method, rhythm method, "pulling out": not always reliable,
requires intense monitoring of body temperature, cycles, must abstain from sex during ovulation (when
most women probably want sex the most), man forgets or "forgets" or doesn't pull out in time.
-Abstinence: this doesn't count! Human beings want to have sex. It's a part of life. It's part of being a
developed, functional adult. You can't expect people to just not have sex. It's natural, it's part of our
biological instinct as a human mammal. You can tell teens not to have sex until you're blue in the face,
but guess what? Teenagers are still going to have sex if they want. Hasn't this been proven time and time
again? Abstinence only education and denying birth control options to teenagers isn't going to stop
anyone, but what it WILL do is increase the instance of sexually transmitted infections if teens don't have
the tools and education to protect themselves and take charge of their own health. Really, widespread
application of abstinence-only sex education is a PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT.
No woman WANTS to have an abortion. Abortion is a painful, uncomfortable, and costly procedure. Ask any woman if she wants a vacuum stuck up her vagina. Ask any woman if she wants the severe cramps, pain, and heavy bleeding that come with taking mifepristone (the "abortion pill"). No woman willingly puts herself through that. No woman wants to be in the position of having to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Even if abortion were entirely outlawed tomorrow, women would still have abortions. They would just have them clandestinely and under unsterile unsafe circumstances where the risk of infections, complications, and death are high. Outlawing abortion aint gonna stop a damn thing. You think women never tried to end an unwanted pregnancy before Roe v. Wade came along? Banning abortion will just equal more women dying from unsafe "back-alley" abortions. Anti-abortion advocates think they're saving lives when really they're doing the exact opposite... or is it really that the woman's life just isn't important enough?
And speaking of, it is absolutely DISGUSTING that there are some people who value what they term "potential life" over an actual mature living, breathing, existing human being. Whether they realize it or not, by giving precedence to "potential life" over an actual walking, talking, thinking, feeling, learning, loving human being, the anti-choice set is essentially telling women that their only value is as a walking womb.
And clearly they seem to think women are too stupid to know what's best for them, so they need strangers to tell them. No, it's not okay to have an abortion if you can't afford to provide for a baby, if you can't afford prenatal care, if you have no one to support you during your pregnancy or after. No, it's not okay to have an abortion to save your own life or health or sanity- that's just not important. No, it's not okay to have an abortion if you were raped- clearly that's your fault so you should live with the consequences.
This is not okay. Let me say it again. THIS IS NOT OKAY. Anti-choice supporters say they want to create a culture that celebrates life- but I guess not the lives of women, since it seems to be okay for women to be in pain, to die, to live with the consequences of choices they weren't allowed to make all for the cause of "potential life".
And where does it end? If anti-choice advocates have their way and abortion is outlawed to preserve "potential life", will their next crusade be to outlaw birth control since that prevents "potential life"? With that logic I guess women should be pregnant as much as possible, since shedding an egg every month through menstruation is also preventing "potential life". And I'm not even sure that most anti-choicers would be okay with that.
The anti-choice movement says that it cares about the lives of women. Well, if anti-choicers REALLY care about the lives of women, maybe they should stop trying to legislate private, personal, life choices and put their energy to use in a way that really would save the lives of women. Rape, female genital mutilation, sex slavery are all rampant in our world. Imagine if anti-choice activists devoted even half the energy to stopping these attrocities as they do to telling women how to live their lives... what an impact THAT would have.
Cool
BANGKOK |
Yingluck Shinawatra, a 44-year-old businesswoman who wasn't even in politics two months ago, is poised to get the top job after the stunning election victory of Puea Thai (For Thais), whose de facto leader is her brother, fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.
Yingluck, known as Pou (Crab), the nickname her parents gave her, has never run for office or held a government post, so she has a lot to prove to show she can run the country.
But some Thais, especially females, want to give her the benefit of the doubt and see this as a big step for women in a country where they have struggled for equal representation in government.
"I've always wanted to have the first lady prime minister," said Areerak Saelim, 42-year-old owner of a sunglass shop in a Bangkok market.
"I've seen too many men failing to run the country. Maybe this time, things will be different. What women are -- and men aren't -- is meticulous. I'm pretty sure she can do the job based on her age and successful career."
Yingluck has promised to revive her brother's populist policies and raise living standards among the poor, vowing to pursue national reconciliation to end a six-year political crisis, without seeking vengeance for her brother's overthrow by the military in 2006.
"More and more women are capable, knowledgeable and can actually get the job done these days," said Yaowalak Poolthong, first executive vice-president of Krung Thai Bank Pcl.
"I don't think gender should be an issue, limiting who can or can't do the job."
MAN BEHIND THE WOMAN
But some wondered whether she was her own woman.
"It's obvious who she represents," said Puttasa Karnsakulton, a 37-year-old clothing shop owner.
Thaksin, a twice-elected prime minister who is now living as a fugitive from Thai justice in Dubai, has said he wants to come home, and one of Yingluck's policies is an amnesty for political offences.
"I can't accept it if having the first female prime minister means she'll come in to benefit one person. There are doubts in my mind that this is simply a woman in front of a man," Puttasa said.
Puea Thai's plan to give each province 100 million baht ($3.2 million) to support the income-generating activities of women's groups has left some women's rights advocates skeptical.
"Who is to decide who will get the money? Will this be just a one-off handout? Will it work as a revolving fund?" asked Sutada Mekrungruengkul, director of the Gender and Development Research Institute.
Siriphan Noksuan, associate professor at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Science, said it was far too early to say what kind of leader she would be.
"People know she's a political novice," Siriphan said.
"But they also trust that she will have an army of pundits and economic advisers behind the scene to help her."
For now, she can bask in her victory after a campaign that left defeated Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, a career politician, struggling from day one.
Abhisit doesn't have the common touch. Yingluck, a wealthy businesswoman, and Thaksin, a billionaire former telecoms tycoon, do.
"In some way, I feel like I can connect with her and her brother even though we're poor and have nothing," said Malai Jiemdee, a maid from Nakhon Ratchasima province. ($1 = 30.795 Baht)
(Additional reporting by Manunphattr Dhanananphorn; Editing by Alan Raybould)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/03/us-thailand-election-women-idUSTRE7621CW20110703
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Worms in the Apple and a tirade about the mentality of the American "work ethic"
From AlterNet.org:
Mac Stores Tell Workers, Instead of Giving You Health Care, Working for Apple 'Should Be Looked at As An Experience'By Josh Eidelson, In These Times
Posted on June 28, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/151465/mac_stores_tell_workers%2C_instead_of_giving_you_health_care%2C_working_for_apple_%27should_be_looked_at_as_an_experience%27
On the day Apple celebrated 10 years since opening its first Apple Store, employee Cory Moll announced a campaign to unionize the company’s 30,000-plus retail employees. Moll sent an e-mail to reporters declaring that “the people of Apple are coming together to "‘work different.’” "The core issues definitely involve compensation, pay, benefits," Moll said.
A Reuters reporter echoed the response of many journalists in calling the union drive “unusual given Apple’s reputation for fierce employee loyalty.” But interviews with workers in three states help explain how and why some of Apple’s employees want to change the company. (All three employees interviewed for this article requested and were provided anonymity based on their fear of retaliation.)
A Bay Area employee described what happened last year when he and about a dozen co-workers realized employees with years of service were being paid less than new hires doing the same work. Agitated about the situation but concerned about retaliation, the workers committed to a plan: during the approaching round of annual one-on-one meetings between workers and managers, they would each ask about pay disparities.
Those workers who did ask received a consistent response: “Money shouldn’t be an issue when you’re employed at Apple.” Instead, managers said, the chance to work at Apple “should be looked at as an experience.” “You can’t live off of experience,” said the worker interviewed. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Apple has outpaced Tiffany & Co. jewelers in retail sales per square foot.
Employees said that Apple keeps its healthcare costs down by defining even employees working 40 hours a week as part-time if they can’t guarantee open availability (availability to be scheduled to work anytime the store is open). The three workers interviewed said that most employees at each of their stores either work second jobs or go to school, making open availability impossible.
These workers are instead offered Apple’s “part-time” health insurance plan, which costs them much more and the company much less. The Bay Area worker, who works 32 to 40 hours a week, is currently going without medication for a serious health condition because he can’t afford the $120 to $150 a month for the “part time” plan. “$120 a month is what I live on after rent and bills,” he said. All three employees said that the majority of their co-workers were classified as part time.
A Maryland worker said that Apple’s understaffing can make the workload “overwhelming” during high traffic periods and leaves him “singled out” by frustrated customers. He said it “adds tension and makes it a lot more difficult to be effective” as both employees and customers become increasingly stressed.
A New York State worker said that “our demand has outgrown our staffing tremendously,” and that he is yelled at by customers at least once a week. He said the contrast between the lengths Apple goes to satisfy customers and its inflexibility in the face of employees’ needs is “demoralizing.”
The same worker said he has ideas for how to make his store run more effectively, but has no avenue to get them taken seriously given Apple’s “very top-down corporate culture.” In the past year, management made “a very big overhaul” of workers’ schedules and responsibilities at his store. For his co-workers, it meant “less time doing the things they like to do both at work and outside of work”: less time for repairs and more time on the floor; less consistent schedules and more times working a night shift followed by a morning shift hours later.
The change “wreaked havoc” on his personal life and “strained” his relationship with his girlfriend. He calls the new system “a drain emotionally and physically” and resents that he had no voice in it. Though he’s undecided about unionization, he said if it happened, “the biggest benefit” would be “just having a say in these situations.”
All three workers interviewed saw organizing the stores as a daunting task. The Bay Area worker said he is eager to get involved but most of his co-workers fear punishment for “even talking about a union.” He said that Apple goes out of its way to make employees feel “extremely expendable.” “For a company that has been founded on the ideas of ‘think different’ and innovation,” he said, “their labor practices are anything but.”
The Maryland employee said that although he wants a union, his first reaction on hearing about Moll’s e-mail was, “That guy is going to get fired.” He said after he was hired, a trainer told him “casually” that Apple was against union organizing and that working nonunion was part of the job. The comment was “thrown in there with the sexual harassment training.”
Moll told industry website Inside Apple Store that he has begun working with a “prominent national union” to organize his own store and that he has received e-mails from workers at 100 other stores interested in union representation.
Apple, which has more than 30,000 employees in 325 stores around the world, did not respond to a request for comment.
Read more of Working In These Times.
Josh Eidelson is a freelance writer and a union organizer based in Philadelphia. He's written about politics as a contributor to Campus Progress, a columnist for the Yale Daily News, and a research fellow for Talking Points Media. His work has appeared online at publications including In These Times, Dissent, Washington Monthly, and Alternet. Check out his blog: http://www.josheidelson.com Twitter: @josheidelson E-mail: "jeidelson" at "gmail" dot com.
© 2011 In These Times All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/151465
--------------
This really sticks in my craw. I'm sure a lot of people would say "you should just consider yourself lucky that you have a job". No. NO. Sure, it's good to be thankful for what you have. Sure, a lot of people are desperately looking for a job. Sure, unemployment/underemployment is sky high and when you have rent to pay, family to support, etc, you don't always have the luxury of choice- sometimes you do what you gotta do. I get that. I understand that. BUT... especially in an economic climate of un/underemployment, employers feel justified in taking advantage of workers' desperation- stripping or denying benefits, overworking employees (some without even the compensation of overtime) or cutting hours, unsafe working conditions, and a minimum wage paycheck that barely covers the cost of living, if it does at all. True, employers have exploited workers for as long as the concept of employment has existed, but they can really get away with it now when jobs aren't as plentiful. The mentality among employers seems to be that of "you need us more than we need you'. In the modern economy, the worker is expendable, or is at least made to think he or she is expendable. And most people go along with it, whether because they feel they have no other option or because we've been indoctrinated into a belief of extreme allegiance to work. Sacrificing health, happiness, and a majority of your life to an unsatisfying, unrewarding, abusive, low-paying job is de rigeur for the American worker, and if you don't subscribe to this mentality you're lazy, you have no work ethic, and you just expect to have everything handed to you. It's all part of the "American Dream" of pulling yourself up by the proverbial bootstraps- working the crappy jobs with a smile, taking the poor-treatment, low-pay, being demoralized and dehumanized on a daily basis. Don't complain. If you do you're greedy, entitled, and idealistic. The employer is King and we are simply his lowly subjects, thanking His Majesty for whatever tiny crumbs he may throw our way.
The thing is, it shouldn't be that way. Collectively American workers- whether bussing tables, working an assembly line, or waiting on customers at a slick gadget retailer, need to grow a backbone. You (yes, you) are a commodity. Your skills (and even "unskilled labor" requires skill) are a commodity. Employers realize this and they thrive on the fact that most workers are too demoralized or indoctrinated in this dominant thought pattern of supreme allegiance to "work" to realize that this commodity of skill gives them power.
Truthfully, employment is (or should be) a two-way street. You have a valuable commodity to offer: your skill, your time, etc, and they have a valuable commodity to offer, namely money. Just as gold, silver, and oil are commodities, the skill of the worker is also a commodity. Most people wouldn't sell a piece of gold jewelry for 5 dollars. That's far underestimating it's value. So why are we selling our skills and our time- hell, our very LIVES even, when we get compensated so poorly?
Now you might think, ok this is all well and good and easy for you to say: refuse the lousy job, don't pay rent and end up living in a van down by the river. And to an extent, there is very little one person can do alone. However, if more and more people change their thought pattern and say "enough already", unionize, strike, or collectively refuse to work at low-paying, demoralizing jobs, employers will be forced to recognize the value of their workforce and change their behavior accordingly. As long as people are willing to keep quiet, keep their head down, and accept being treated poorly as a simply a consequence of being in the "working world", employers will continue to behave just as they do now because they know that for every one person with the audacity to expect and demand to be treated for what they are worth, there are ten people behind him/her that will work as wage slaves. Employers like Apple need to be forced to realize that really, they need us as much (if not more) than we need them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)