(title shamelessly stolen from http://www.feministe.us/blog/)
This is a global distributional issue. This is about getting enough to eat. (I make no claim to originality here: several women* are writing on this issue right now.)
Women are roughly 50% of the world’s population, do two thirds of the work, but earn 10% of the income and control just 1% of the world’s wealth.
The price of food everywhere is going up. The major rises in agricultural yield came about because of mechanization and petrochemical fertilizers, both of which become more expensive when energy prices go up. Worse, politically attractive but resource-stupid forays into ethanol have pushed the prices of some food crops higher.
The New York Times this week said that in Peru, women urge action on food prices:
.......Link
Yes it is that kenneth Zucker they are talking about, now just personally I'm not a big fan of someone who thinks that we should cure gender variance being anywhere near the treatment of trans* people, and oh it gets better now while transphobia is still front and center of the psychological world, I am yet to meet a melbourne trans* person who likes the monash gender clinic. I thought that out and out homophobia had become less mainstream, but apparently not, not when the DSM is still being written by people who would perfer if we were treated out of existance.
....Ken Zucker is a psychologist at the Clarke Institute (aka "Jurassic Clarke") in Toronto. Zucker is famous for forcing gender-variant children into reparative therapy to conform to his expectations for male and female behavior in children. He considers transsexual women a "bad outcome" for gay men.
Zucker is a darling of the "ex-gay" movement because of his work "curing" gender-variant children. Here is a piece featuring his work via ex-gay group NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuals):
From the wonderful book "the man who would be queen" a bible of tolerance and understanding (ha)Zucker found several predictors of adolescent GID: lower IQ, lower social class, immigrant status, non-intact family, and childhood behavior problems unrelated to gender identity disorder. Obviously, none of these factors can be considered very specific. Parental divorce and low social class are both very common, and most males who experience them do not become transsexual. The factors do, however, suggest a common theme: early adversity. I will speculate later about what this might mean. When I have discussed the theory that homosexual transsexuals are a type of gay man, I have met resistance. I was surprised at this, for the idea is neither new nor, it seemed to me, controversial. Some of the resistance was emotional. People who believe that homosexuality is not a disorder tend to dislike the implication that a subset of homosexuals are disordered.
edit: got it
I don't care if it is good for your standing, you sold us out when your populatrity was around 80%, the one time you could have got away with being a decent fucking human being.
Also, you all suck and I hate you, now give me back my god damn neurotransmitters
How not to be an arsehole, or in other words That guy
I also want to add this as well
There may well be more later.
I shouldn't have been shocked, these stories come only a little while after those of Jayant Patel a doctor who it is believed was able to move from the US to Australia and begin making the same mistakes, mistakes which killed people because he wasn't stopped because those who tried to stop him had their jobs threatened by management because this doctor was seen as more important that the patients and more important that the nurses.
heads up to
I’m Mrs. Lifestyles of the rich and famous
I’m Mrs. Oh my God that Britney’s Shameless
I’m Mrs. Extra! Extra! this just in
I’m Mrs. she’s too big now she’s too thin
I’m Mrs. ‘Most likely to get on the TV for strippin’ on the streets’
When getting the groceries, no, for real..
Are you kidding me?
No wonder there's panic in the industry
I giggled, and giggled and giggled when I first heard this.
They did. They spoke and they deserve to be heard.
As she does.
I am sorry we have lost you, this little bit of the world will be less without you.
Stolen from
Take a look at your LJ friend list, then list up to ten things you want to say to ten different LJ friends. Do NOT state who these people are. DO NOT confirm nor deny any “comment speculation”.
So why are you sex positive?
Because I don't believe there is anything wrong with adult consenting sexuality, because I think there are plenty of things wrong with trying how people experience their sexuality, because I think that good women/bad women hurts all women, because I believe that no women benefits from being told that she better be careful or she might just become one of the fallen ones which society doesn't have to care about.
So is that why you support the decriminalisation/legalisation of sex work
No, not really, that comes from my understanding of the effects of criminalisation on behaviour, I don't like drug abuse, I don't encourage people to use addictive drugs but I care about death being prevented and because of that I don't want addicts and other users being afraid police, so afraid in fact that they will not save a life they have the power to save.
reason for stopping or delaying seeking help (Darke, Ross et al. 1996b; McGregor, Darke et al. 1998).
Given that witnesses are present at the majority of overdoses, that the effects of overdose are easily
reversible and that immediate death from overdose is rare, any intervention that increases
help-seeking behaviour has the potential to reduce overdose mortality.
[link] page 56
Legalization means stuff like this happens crimanalization means stuff like this does.
See that, blink and you would miss it, unless you dig deeper into the data you might never realise the the change in effectiveness is due to the placebo, not the drugs. This happens all the time, while working as a statistician I have come to the realisation that it is easier to mislead a reader than it is to give them a true picture of what the data says, I honestly struggle to not mislead those who I write for.
Experts Dispute Report Critical of Antidepressants
Eve BenderConclusions about antidepressant efficacy based on a meta-analysis of FDA clinical trials raise serious questions.
In late February some headlines heralded bad news for those being treated for depression: "Prozac does not work," declared one headline from the UK Guardian, "and nor do similar drugs...."
The news was in reaction to a metaanalysis of trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1987 to 1999. The report appeared in the February 26 PLOS Medicine.
"These findings suggest that, compared with placebo, the new-generation antidepressants do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression," the authors wrote, "but show significant effects for only the most depressed patients."
.........
In their editorial, Turner and Rosenthal pointed out that the criterion set by NICE is "problematic, because it transforms effect size, a continuous measure, into a yes or no measure, thereby suggesting that drug efficacy is either totally present or absent, even when comparing values as close together as 0.51 and 0.49."
They also noted that the NICE criterion is not a definitive measure, but a value that could be problematic as a litmus test for drug efficacy.
In the article, Kirsch and his colleagues noted that drug efficacy did not change as a function of initial depression severity, whereas placebo efficacy decreased as initial depression severity increased. "Efficacy reaches clinical significance only in trials involving the most extremely depressed patients," the authors wrote, "due to a decrease in the response to placebo rather than to an increase in the response to medication."
[link]
I wish the media was more questioning, if I had my way every journalism student would take courses in which they would have to make misleading findings given data in the hope that they would start asking questions of they way that studies where produced, did the researchers consider income, age, education level...? is the effect due to outliers? did the researchers try a non parametric methods to confirm the results?
Humans are too willing to believe a man in a white coat, and we need to stop, it's time to step out of the 80's open our eyes, it's time to be blinded no more
Brothels will be legal in WA in a matter of months after landmark prostitution legislation was passed last night, despite political and community opposition to the State Government’s controversial reforms.[Link]The Upper House passed the Prostitution Amendment Bill by 14 votes to 13, with ousted Labor MP turned Independent Shelley Archer proving to be the difference in the close count.
Ms Archer backflipped on her stance in recent weeks after brokering a deal with the Government to fund sex and drug education programs in the State’s North-West, which virtually guaranteed the Bill’s passage.
Opposition MPs and anti-prostitution campaigners declared yesterday was a dark day for WA which would lead to tragic consequences and the exploitation of women.
One of the most controversial aspects of the legislation is allowing brothels with up to two sex workers to operate in residential streets without being licensed.
This has got no coverage, this is the first I heard of it, and I heard of it from a US based group.
The piece in this that really struck me was from trinitiy, a genderqueer who like me gets passing privilege.
And I don't entirely think that's misplaced, actually. I mean, the people saying it are saying it mainly because they're virulently transphobic, which is bad. But the truth is that our society doesn't really do much differentiating between people who are gender variant because they just don't fit the usual gender role, or those who are gender variant because they're uncomfortable with their bodies as they currently are, or who are gender variant because they think of themselves as a different gender than the one they "should" supposedly be. Or any combination thereof. (I've met people who, for example, act like regular old men or women as far as I can tell, yet are genderqueer, for example. I've met people who twist gender roles all to hell and are adamant that they're "still a man" or "still a woman." I've met butch trans women and femme trans men.)
And if we're all freaks, if we all don't fit, then it's at least vaguely understandable why someone might bristle at "cisgendered," because who is? Am I? How transgendered am I? I've never been able to answer that.
But the thing is, the big thing, the thing they miss, is that the term cisgendered isn't designed to place people carefully on a continuum. It's designed to remind us all that trans people are exposed to violence, ridicule, and oppression that the rest of us are not, or are not on nearly the same scale. Do I get comments? Yes, but I don't get the uniquely horrifying sort of rape that happened to Brandon Teena(look what you've got here, GIRL), and I've never been murdered.
- Mood:frustrated
Blah. Blah. Blah. Same old crap.
Now sadly I can't find the front page picture which accompanied this article, it showed 20-30 graduating cops and was apparently meant to show the great diversity of the police force, there where at least a couple of women and a middle aged guy, but and I think this should be a big but, it was the WHITEST GROUP OF WHITEY MCWHITE'S I have ever seen.
Diversity, for whites.