Let's make one thing clear, right now.
Ronald Reagan once said that he would support a family member who decided to get an abortion. He was not lying.
The Republican party consists of two groups, those who vote for their own best interests, since they're upper middle - upper class, and those who have been duped to join on "moral" grounds, regardless of the fact that the party makes economically poor choices for them.
Abortion will never be illegal for the middle-upper class in America. Oh sure, occasionally one of their 14 year old daughters who is too scared to tell her parents will end up in a back alley somewhere, or bleeding out on the pristine new tiles of her suburban bathroom, but by and large, abortion will probably remain legal in Europe, and for a while anyway, in Canada. Plane tickets are not prohibitively expensive for the upper class. Of course, there also remains the issue of whether the upper class will have more access to medical doctors in the United States willing to code a D&C as a "missed miscarriage", or at this point, willing to prescribe mifepristone (also used in RU-486) for "peptic ulcers". They likely will.
Promoting pro-life agendas for the upper class is therefore a power issue more so than a moral one. Their choice is not, really, threatened. It is, however, a very powerful political ploy to say that they are willing to give up their choices for moral reasons. Whether you believe in abortion or not, as a moral issue, understand, it has nothing to do with why the Republican party as a whole argues for it's revocation.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Teen healthcare
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1721292,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
One in four teen girls has an STD. 40% of those that acknowledge having sex do.
Current guidelines, as I understand them, suggest that you take teen girls to the gynecologist as soon as they are sexually active, or at 18.
This is possibly the stupidest possible guideline.
Medically, it sort of makes sense. IF there are no reproductive health related problems, there is no reason to go the GYN. This is kind of the same logic that states if there are no health problems, you shouldn't bother ever taking your child to the pediatrician for a well-child checkup. Seriously, do all rules of parenting and common sense fly out the window as soon as a child hits puberty?
Children hit puberty between at around 10-14 years of age. At that point, they need to be seen by someone with experience in reproduction. Boys, maybe not, maybe a teen-centric pediatrician may be fine. But pediatricians don't have the expertise to diagnose and treat even minor gynecological issues.
Point is, women are supposed to go the gynecologist once a year from the time they're 18 until they're dead. What's a few extra years? Doesn't it make sense to take girls to the GYN as soon as they hit puberty to check for problems and answer questions? We check weight gain, height, motor development, and many other things in children. Why is reproductive health falling through the cracks?
One in four teen girls has an STD. 40% of those that acknowledge having sex do.
Current guidelines, as I understand them, suggest that you take teen girls to the gynecologist as soon as they are sexually active, or at 18.
This is possibly the stupidest possible guideline.
Medically, it sort of makes sense. IF there are no reproductive health related problems, there is no reason to go the GYN. This is kind of the same logic that states if there are no health problems, you shouldn't bother ever taking your child to the pediatrician for a well-child checkup. Seriously, do all rules of parenting and common sense fly out the window as soon as a child hits puberty?
Children hit puberty between at around 10-14 years of age. At that point, they need to be seen by someone with experience in reproduction. Boys, maybe not, maybe a teen-centric pediatrician may be fine. But pediatricians don't have the expertise to diagnose and treat even minor gynecological issues.
Point is, women are supposed to go the gynecologist once a year from the time they're 18 until they're dead. What's a few extra years? Doesn't it make sense to take girls to the GYN as soon as they hit puberty to check for problems and answer questions? We check weight gain, height, motor development, and many other things in children. Why is reproductive health falling through the cracks?
Women's clothing sizes
Women's clothing sizes have taken on almost mythic proportions. From the "perfect" size 6 to the size 24W, theses sizes have no bearing on reality. The actual measurements that these "sizes" reflect vary from clothing manufacturer to clothing manufacturer.
If that weren't enough, adult females have three or four different "magic" size charts to choose from. There's juniors, which initially seems like it should have only smaller clothes, this is not really true, since it goes up to size 17 in some stores, but is cut differently, for a figure that carries more weight about the midsection and less in the hips, or to be blunt, the butt and thighs, as the stereotypical teenager does. For fun, it starts at size 1, and goes up in increments of 2, so the sizes are all odd.
Then there is the "Misses" department. WTF? This is not even a politically correct name. It reflects "normal" adult women. It goes from about size 0 to size 18, but evenly.
Then there is "Woman's". This means clothing for overweight women. No really, that is what it is code for. Granted, there might be some women who shop there who simply are very large busted and need a roomier shirt, but generally, that is what this section is for. Depending on the department, this size might start out at an unusually large 8 and go up, or it might just start at 16 or 18 and go up, or it might make up a completely different sizing chart. So people don't feel bad.
Of course, none of these are actually standardized across brands or stores.
And people wonder why women have issues about their size.
Mind you, I'm leaving out less commonly used sizes. For more information, check this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size#Women.27s_sizes
Now, you might say that this is because women are harder to fit then men, with many more body types. This is somewhat crap. Most men's pants fit most women quite comfortably. Just not as tightly or closely. Ask any GAP sales representative how many women buy men's pants. If men were expected to wear pants that hugged their bodies the way women do, they'd need 3 or 4 different sizes too. It just seems to me that it would make more sense to have one department where sizes scaled linearly based on, say, some internationally recognized standard of measurement. Men's pants are measured in inches. I'm no great fan of the English measurement system, but anything is better than this.
If that weren't enough, adult females have three or four different "magic" size charts to choose from. There's juniors, which initially seems like it should have only smaller clothes, this is not really true, since it goes up to size 17 in some stores, but is cut differently, for a figure that carries more weight about the midsection and less in the hips, or to be blunt, the butt and thighs, as the stereotypical teenager does. For fun, it starts at size 1, and goes up in increments of 2, so the sizes are all odd.
Then there is the "Misses" department. WTF? This is not even a politically correct name. It reflects "normal" adult women. It goes from about size 0 to size 18, but evenly.
Then there is "Woman's". This means clothing for overweight women. No really, that is what it is code for. Granted, there might be some women who shop there who simply are very large busted and need a roomier shirt, but generally, that is what this section is for. Depending on the department, this size might start out at an unusually large 8 and go up, or it might just start at 16 or 18 and go up, or it might make up a completely different sizing chart. So people don't feel bad.
Of course, none of these are actually standardized across brands or stores.
And people wonder why women have issues about their size.
Mind you, I'm leaving out less commonly used sizes. For more information, check this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size#Women.27s_sizes
Now, you might say that this is because women are harder to fit then men, with many more body types. This is somewhat crap. Most men's pants fit most women quite comfortably. Just not as tightly or closely. Ask any GAP sales representative how many women buy men's pants. If men were expected to wear pants that hugged their bodies the way women do, they'd need 3 or 4 different sizes too. It just seems to me that it would make more sense to have one department where sizes scaled linearly based on, say, some internationally recognized standard of measurement. Men's pants are measured in inches. I'm no great fan of the English measurement system, but anything is better than this.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Why this blog?
It occurred to me at one point that while I have other web pages, and even other blogs, I do not have a blog specifically for criticism, and unfortunately, the criticism is starting to leak into the other web areas it shouldn't be. This is a space where I will be critiquing many things, from politics to food. I invite you, the reader, to comment should you feel moved to, but require a few things:
1. Comments should address the topic at hand, not me, or your personal beliefs about my personal life.
2. No name calling, it's pointless, and this isn't the first grade.
3. If your particular brand of OCD requires perfect spelling and grammar at all times, please try and restrain yourself, unless you really don't understand what I'm saying. This is about the topic, not about the proper use of semicolons.
I'll add to this as necessary.
1. Comments should address the topic at hand, not me, or your personal beliefs about my personal life.
2. No name calling, it's pointless, and this isn't the first grade.
3. If your particular brand of OCD requires perfect spelling and grammar at all times, please try and restrain yourself, unless you really don't understand what I'm saying. This is about the topic, not about the proper use of semicolons.
I'll add to this as necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)