| Register  | FAQ  | Search | Login 
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:24 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4369 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 ... 175  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:53 am 
Offline
Vegan Vegan Vegan Vegan Vegan
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:30 pm
Posts: 4589
Location: zomgz dijk
Tofulish wrote:
Trigger warning.

Spoiler: show
17 year old gets 14 year old minor girl drunk, videotapes himself and a friend raping her and another 13 year old minor girl. The boys dump her unconscious and nearly naked in 30F weather in front of her home, where she spends 3 hours before coming to. There is lots of physical evidence and sheriff gets confessions and arrests the boys. But then the prosecutor drops all charges, blaming the family for posting about it on social media. Of course the decision to prosecute has nothing to do with the fact that one of the boys is the grandson of a state representative.

The alleged rapists are having a great time at college, while one of the victim's family was run out of town, and she is struggling with suicide attempts.

Quote:
In a case that resembles several other high-profile sexual assault charges across the U.S., a 17-year-old Maryville High School senior, Matthew Barnett, was arrested for sexually assaulting Daisy Coleman, then leaving her propped up beside her family’s home. Another Maryville High senior, Jordan Zech, 17, was also charged in the case, accused of felony sexual exploitation of a minor because he videotaped Barnett and Daisy Coleman on an iPhone.

But the difference between this case and others – in particular the Steubenville, Ohio, case in which two high school football players were convicted of raping and videotaping an incapacitated 16-year-old girl – Barnett and Zech are free today. In a move that shocked the town, Robert Rice, the Nodaway County prosecutor, dropped all charges two months after the alleged assault.


http://kcur.org/post/why-was-maryville- ... se-dropped


I often think about j-dub's comment (apologies if I am misquoting) that rape breaks people. I want to believe that it doesn't, that we get through and its all okay, but sometimes I think that it really can. I find it so heartbreaking that the young men involved have had no consequences from this, but that the girls are still struggling as a result.

Quote:
The boys have graduated. The girls are in schools in another town now and aren’t friends anymore.

Daisy Coleman, now 16, has had a particularly tough time. The girl who used to be an athlete and dancer, who won local beauty pageants, is now cutting herself. And there have been several suicide attempts.

...

And the mom misses the two girls she knew before that January night in 2012.

“They were sparkly. They just lit up a room wherever they went, so much fun. And you know, neither one of them has that anymore,” the mom said. “She was either going to be a vet or a doctor and now she wants to be a baby-sitter. She went from straight A's, to kind of mediocre. From being a cheerleader to not wanting to do anything. It just took away her entire teenage years. “


Oh and the rapists' families want an apology from the family of the rape victim, after they drove her family from the town. And mysteriously, the victim's house was burned down. http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/12/45 ... exual.html

http://gawker.com/family-gets-driven-ou ... socialflow


Sounds like Anonymous decided to mass protest this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/14/a ... er-to-die/

_________________
ॐ लोकः समासतः सुखिनो भवन्तु
http://www.embracingtheworld.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:03 pm 
Offline
Lime and a Coconut
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:42 am
Posts: 3822
Location: Smugville, CA
lepelaar wrote:
This whole Danielle Lee Scientific American situation challenges my feminism and my anti-racism.

If you haven't heard about it, Danielle Lee, an African-American woman who writes a blog called The Urban Scientist for Scientific American was approached to guest blog for a website called Biology-online. She asked about what would be involved and if she would be financially compensated for her time. After receiving a reply about the conditions including an indication that she would not be paid for her time she politely declined. Her correspondent then asked her if she was "an urban scientist or an urban hors d'oeuvre".

Adding insult to injury, when she blogged about the situation on her Urban Scientist blog, Scientific American deleted the blog, effectively silencing her.


I read her re-posted blog, and love that last photo. It really says it all.

_________________
Crazy rating: Double plus crazytown bananapants ~Jordanpattern
Too much woo, you guys. Too much woo ~Tofulish
Sews Before Bros


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:15 pm 
Offline
Semen Strong
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:10 pm
Posts: 19105
Location: Cliffbar NJ
lutin wrote:
Sounds like Anonymous decided to mass protest this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/14/a ... er-to-die/


I am glad.

I think the part that is really getting to me, is that there are girls from the same town, who are now in college, who are still harassing the victims, and who have said openly that their goal is to make Daisy Coleman commit suicide. She has already tried to kill herself twice and is clearly very vulnerable and hurt.

I just don't get how women and girls could identify more with the rapist and close ranks to protect him, rather than wanting to support the victim. And I know it happens all the time, and its part of the rape culture and the way it is easier to blame people for the bad things that happen to them (because it makes you feel more in control and like you can protect yourself from bad things happening to you if you "follow the rules"). But I would be horrified if my child grew up to be the kind of person who would bully another child.

And I also don't get how FB will remove pictures of a woman breastfeeding in minutes, and will freeze the accounts of people like the Badass Breastfeeder or the Feminist Breeder who post several BFing pictures, but won't delete cyberbullying posts or freeze the accounts of bullies.

_________________
My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:03 pm 
Offline
WRETCHED
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 8648
Location: Maryland/DC area
Up until 5 minutes ago, I was signed up for getting newsletters from Dr. Fuhrman. But did you know, according to Dr. Fuhrman that mammograms won't prevent breast cancer? Only eating the right things will prevent breast cancer. So forget mammograms, just eat vegan and you don't have to worry about it.

What a forking load of crepe.

_________________
You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:18 pm 
Offline
Level 7 Vegan
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:15 am
Posts: 1539
linanil wrote:
Up until 5 minutes ago, I was signed up for getting newsletters from Dr. Fuhrman. But did you know, according to Dr. Fuhrman that mammograms won't prevent breast cancer? Only eating the right things will prevent breast cancer. So forget mammograms, just eat vegan and you don't have to worry about it.

What a forking load of crepe.

Isn't she partially right? Mammograms don't prevent cancer. Eating a diet filled with lots of plant foods does reduce your risk.

ETA: I definitely agree that being vegan doesn't mean you don't have to worry about cancer. Sarah Kramer can attest to that, unfortunately :/

_________________
"One time I meant to send a potential employer a resume, but I accidentally sent them a bucket of puke!

So embarrassing!" -just mumbles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:44 pm 
Offline
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3611
Location: It's hot. All the time.
Jigglypuff wrote:
linanil wrote:
Up until 5 minutes ago, I was signed up for getting newsletters from Dr. Fuhrman. But did you know, according to Dr. Fuhrman that mammograms won't prevent breast cancer? Only eating the right things will prevent breast cancer. So forget mammograms, just eat vegan and you don't have to worry about it.

What a forking load of crepe.

Isn't she partially right? Mammograms don't prevent cancer. Eating a diet filled with lots of plant foods does reduce your risk.

ETA: I definitely agree that being vegan doesn't mean you don't have to worry about cancer. Sarah Kramer can attest to that, unfortunately :/

I think Dr. Fuhrman believes that buying his crepe will prevent cancer...

The post that Linanil saw definitely had the stink of "you don't need a mammogram if you just eat right" or "People who eat the way I say to don't get cancer!"

_________________
A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-Dub
Dessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. Fezza
You people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:58 pm 
Offline
WELFARIST!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 5193
Vantine wrote:
Jigglypuff wrote:
linanil wrote:
Up until 5 minutes ago, I was signed up for getting newsletters from Dr. Fuhrman. But did you know, according to Dr. Fuhrman that mammograms won't prevent breast cancer? Only eating the right things will prevent breast cancer. So forget mammograms, just eat vegan and you don't have to worry about it.

What a forking load of crepe.

Isn't she partially right? Mammograms don't prevent cancer. Eating a diet filled with lots of plant foods does reduce your risk.

ETA: I definitely agree that being vegan doesn't mean you don't have to worry about cancer. Sarah Kramer can attest to that, unfortunately :/

I think Dr. Fuhrman believes that buying his crepe will prevent cancer...

The post that Linanil saw definitely had the stink of "you don't need a mammogram if you just eat right" or "People who eat the way I say to don't get cancer!"

And further to this sort of talk, I happened to watch a segment on Dr. Oz the other day featuring Robin Quivers talking about her cancer battle and veganism. And Robin Quivers said something to the effect that her vegan diet made her body healthy and hence, she was better prepared to battle cancer--her body being a healthy condition from good diet makes a strong foundation for fighting disease that was the basis of her promotion of veganism--I don't argue with that. BUT, Dr. Oz took that a step further and put a byline under their talk representing the topic that said "Veganism Beats Cancer!" But that's not what Robin SAID. So I was annoyed that he misrepresented what RQ was saying that way, reducing what sounded to me like healthy advice for anyone to follw to a shock byline cure.

It all just needs to be phrased properly to be accurately understood. Mammograms don't prevent breast cancer but they have the potential of detecting cancer early enough than it otherwise would be so it doesn't spread and when cancer spreads, that's when it's trouble. Nobody ever died of breast cancer, they die of breast cancer that's metastasized to crucial organs and therein lies the the argument for mammograms as a detection tool. Whatever you want to call mammograms, they're not curative--they're about early detection. They're not a treatment option. A treatment option would be (potentially) curative or at least putting the disease in a state of remission--via either chemotherapy or radiation in Western medicine. And chemotherapy simply means "drug therapy" although most folks associate the word with cancer protocols. (Addressing the Dr. Fuhrman stuff).

_________________
"I'm sorry! I'm Canadian!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:01 pm 
Offline
Semen Strong
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:10 pm
Posts: 19105
Location: Cliffbar NJ
On that front, I am getting annoyed with people in the alt.woo community touting thermography as a replacement for mammograms. The theory is that cancer cells show up as "hotter" on a thermal image than healthy tissue, so you can have a non-invasive method of detection. In practice it doesn't work that way, because the difference in temperature would be so miniscule and it would be hard to distinguish which "hot spot" or temperature variance was from cancer and which was from other clusters of blood vessels etc. The FDA has specifically said that thermography is not a substitute for a mammogram.

As someone whose mother died of breast cancer, I kind of want to punch people who are suggesting not getting mammograms and getting thermography instead. It seems so dangerous

_________________
My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:46 pm 
Offline
WRETCHED
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 8648
Location: Maryland/DC area
Yeah, if you look at the FB post on Fuhrman's page, people are saying get thermomagraphy instead. Just eat right and you'll be cancer free is such a detrimental message.

Oh and someone posted this as a comment on Fuhrman's page
"Boy you said it all...I totally agree!!..I a so against xrays....I have only had one mammogram my whole life...and I am in my 50s..and not worried...I take 24 pills of supplements a day..juice..wheatgrass will save your life..I swear by it...and had a flu vaccine shot in the 1980s...got the flu after that..and havent had the flu since and havent had a flu shot since the 1980s...if it ain't broke don't fix it"

My comment which I shared with my husband is you don't get cancer until you do.

I've had a mammogram and I'm glad I have the opportunity to do so.

_________________
You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:08 pm 
Offline
Fair trade, organic mistletoe
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 3507
Location: Toronto
Twenty-four supplements a day! Egads. Is the wheatgrass, juice, and abundance of greens not enough?

_________________
"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:46 am 
Offline
Built this city on rock and roll
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:58 pm
Posts: 1208
linanil wrote:
Up until 5 minutes ago, I was signed up for getting newsletters from Dr. Fuhrman. But did you know, according to Dr. Fuhrman that mammograms won't prevent breast cancer? Only eating the right things will prevent breast cancer. So forget mammograms, just eat vegan and you don't have to worry about it.

What a forking load of crepe.


I have never read his newsletter and only know his website diseaseproof which is full of fatshaming.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:48 am 
Offline
Drinks Wild Tofurkey
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:17 pm
Posts: 2826
Location: Boston, MA
This is sort of a tangent, but I had understood that mammograms really haven't been all that effective in saving lives, in that early detection seems to be not effective at preventing breast cancer deaths:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/2 ... rams/?_r=0

I think that the idea that you can prevent all cancers through diet, or anything, is silly though.

_________________
"If I were M. de la Viandeviande, I would now write a thirteen page post about how you have to have free will to be vegan, but modern science does not suggest any evidence for free will, therefore it is impossible to be vegan." -mumbles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:01 am 
Offline
Should Spend More Time Helping the Animals
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:57 pm
Posts: 6516
Location: Boston, MA
Yeah, and I think it is so hurtful to place the false dichotomy between healthy/unhealthy for those who get cancer because cancer can happen to anyone. It just forking sucks. I mean, I think part of it is people trying to deal with their own mortality, but it certainly doesn't help anyone with cancer to feel better; the least of their concerns should be this is my fault for eating X or not doing Y.

_________________
I would eat Dr. Cow pocket cheese in a second. I would eat it if you hid it under your hat, or in your backpack, but not if it was in your shoe. That's where I draw the line. -allularpunk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:12 am 
Offline
The Real Hamburger Helper
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:31 pm
Posts: 2276
Location: Austin, TX
I really liked this post yesterday The Slippery Slope of Vegan Nutritional Surveillance about the harm that nutritional one-up-manship does does.

Quote:
It used to be that vegans concerned ourselves with social justice and digging at the roots of unjust privileges.

_________________
blarg Lazy Smurf's Guide to Life
twitter @veganLazySmurf
Pinterest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:23 am 
Offline
WELFARIST!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 5193
Quarantined wrote:
This is sort of a tangent, but I had understood that mammograms really haven't been all that effective in saving lives, in that early detection seems to be not effective at preventing breast cancer deaths:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/2 ... rams/?_r=0

This is something to think about for sure. When I first read this linked post, my questions about the study that popped into my head were these, too:

Quote:
There are countless reasons why conclusions from such studies are commonly fraught with error. What if, for instance, the lion’s share of advanced cancers occurred among women without access to screening mammograms—a fact often not available in health statistics? Or what if mammography successfully prevented a major increase in advanced cancers, leaving the health statistics unchanged?


But I believe those concerns are addressed here:
Quote:
By enrolling people in a study and assigning them randomly to treatments, for instance, groups tend to be evenly balanced in every way except one: the treatment. Controlled studies led to the discovery that bloodletting is harmful rather than helpful, and randomized trials of screening mammography would therefore be a worthy gold standard to answer once and for all the question of whether the test saves lives.

It may be surprising, therefore, to learn that numerous trials of mammography have indeed randomly assigned nearly 600,000 women to undergo either regular mammography screening or no screening. The results of more than a decade of follow-up on such studies, published more than 10 years ago, show that women in the mammogram group were just as likely to die as women in the no-mammogram group. The women having mammograms were, however, more likely to be treated for cancer and have surgeries like a mastectomy.


And the mammography economy. Isn't a country's investment in war sometimes reflected in the value of their munitions manufacture? (That was an argument for US continuing involvement in the Vietnam War and continues relevant to other conflicts to this day).

I don't know. Cancer is an extremely complex disease. A nurse who worked with cancer patients in the sixties told me they are still using the same chemotherapeutic agents then as today. There are new agents coming in all the time. There was a great hope maybe five to seven years ago, endostatin, that was believed to starve tumor cells exclusively (it worked theoretically by cutting off the blood supply to tumors only, leaving healthy tissue unaffected and hence killing the tumor only, not healthy cells and tissue) but that went away quickly. Another agent, curcumin (turmeric) provided another hope but I notice again that's (somewhat) faded away. It's a very complex disease and will take a lot to cure it. I personally will continue to get mammograms for myself and do believe in cancer screening as a detection tool. In most respects, this article raises more questions for me than it answers. Thanks for posting it.

_________________
"I'm sorry! I'm Canadian!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:12 pm 
Offline
Not a creepy cheese pocket person
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:17 pm
Posts: 4062
Location: Austin
This Emily Yoffe/Dear Prudence article about rape and alcohol consumption makes me want to vomit. To start with, the headline: Dear Women: Stop Getting Drunk

Quote:
But a misplaced fear of blaming the victim has made it somehow unacceptable to warn inexperienced young women that when they get wasted, they are putting themselves in potential peril.


I'm pretty sure women have gotten the message that they shouldn't drink/walk anywhere alone/live alone/wear certain clothing/be in public. It's not doing anything except keeping women from reporting rape.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... ingle.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:39 pm 
Offline
***LIES!!!***
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:10 pm
Posts: 3815
seitanicverses wrote:
This is sort of a tangent, but I had understood that mammograms really haven't been all that effective in saving lives, in that early detection seems to be not effective at preventing breast cancer deaths....


I would wonder if death is the best marker for this question. Breast cancer is usually diagnosed early and is not a particularly deadly cancer (especially in early diagnosis cases). I'd be more interested in looking at whether or not women who are diagnosed early would have suffered more, had more treatment, etc. if they hadn't had mammography and early detection. I know this is a really hard question to look at, and we really can't necessarily predict which cancers will be most aggressive in which people, but that seems more meaningful to me.

But also, of course the research HAS been looked at and affects recommendations from cancer organizations/the CDC/etc., but there's also a disconnect between researchers'/public health professionals' advice and what individual practitioners tell their patients to do. Like, it's clear that most women don't benefit from mammography before age 50, but that doesn't mean most doctors don't start recommending them at 40. And it's clear that there's a point later in life where it becomes pointless to have mammograms, because most breast cancers in the very old grow so slowly that you will die of old age before the cancer affects your life.

The other thing the research shows is that it's pointless for women to do monthly breast exams, because we generally suck at them anyway, and it's very rare for such an exam to turn up anything worth looking at (and the problem of then biopsying worrying lumps and increasing iatrogenic problems without actually diagnosing more cancers). On the other hand, my mother found her breast cancer through a self-exam. She was many years too young to start mammograms and also probably would have missed out on professional breast exams for quite some time because she was pregnant at the time.

I'm pretty torn about the whole situation and my own preventative/diagnostic health care around it - I have been so remiss in getting the routine testing that has been recommended to me because of my mother's early-in-life cancer and I often feel paralyzed around that decision and torn by the competing information out there. However, it is still seriously problematic for people to recommend useless diagnostic tests over actual diagnostic tests and to make people feel like they've got a free pass on cancer because they eat more vegetables than the average Jane. Those actions are still incredibly hurtful to women. So it would be awesome if those people stopped doing stupid shiitake like that and also if medical practitioners started practicing evidence-based medicine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:08 pm 
Offline
Had sex with a vampire that sparkles.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5406
Location: BRLA
mollyjade wrote:
This Emily Yoffe/Dear Prudence article about rape and alcohol consumption makes me want to vomit. To start with, the headline: Dear Women: Stop Getting Drunk

Quote:
But a misplaced fear of blaming the victim has made it somehow unacceptable to warn inexperienced young women that when they get wasted, they are putting themselves in potential peril.


I'm pretty sure women have gotten the message that they shouldn't drink/walk anywhere alone/live alone/wear certain clothing/be in public. It's not doing anything except keeping women from reporting rape.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... ingle.html


There are so many quotable lines!

Quote:
Young women are getting a distorted message that their right to match men drink for drink is a feminist issue


Yeah, silly girls thinking their right to be treated equally to men is all feministy.

If this wasn't a bigger issue - if all rape could really just be the simple fault of alcohol - and I'm assuming men get drunk just as often as women, why are women raped so much more than men?

_________________
The thing about this thread is, it's dumb. - IJDI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:22 pm 
Offline
WRETCHED
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 8648
Location: Maryland/DC area
Someone posted on the Dr. Fuhrman post that if you listen to your body, you can detect cancer before any machine could! So y'all, just tune into your body and it will tell you it is sick... what?

Oh and the rape article...

Sure there are tons of studies but why not use them for something useful.

Universities - Inform your students that rape (aka non-consentual sex) is not ok. If having sex with someone who is too drunk to consent, it will be considered rape. All complaints will be taken seriously. Even if not convicted of a crime, the student may be kicked out of school. Let students know that all complaints are to be taken seriously and confidentiality will be as protected as much as possible. Let students know that they may not be the only victims. Advertise counseling services, offer ride services, etc, etc. Do the best you can to protect your student body.

Students - Protect yourselves and your friends. Is your drunken friend going home with someone you wouldn't expect them to? Go up to them and ask them if they are ok. Ask them if they want you to take them home. Ask them if they want you to go with them. If they are too drunk to reply, take them home. If you are about to engage in sexual relations with someone, ensure they aren't too drunk to consent If they are, don't have sex with them. And yes, protect yourself by not taking drinks from strangers, form a buddy system with your friends to ensure you get home no matter what happens and take smart steps to prevent alcohol poisoning as well as prevent someone from taking advantage of you.

_________________
You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:33 pm 
Offline
WELFARIST!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 5193
Ariann wrote:
The other thing the research shows is that it's pointless for women to do monthly breast exams, because we generally suck at them anyway, and it's very rare for such an exam to turn up anything worth looking at (and the problem of then biopsying worrying lumps and increasing iatrogenic problems without actually diagnosing more cancers). On the other hand, my mother found her breast cancer through a self-exam. She was many years too young to start mammograms and also probably would have missed out on professional breast exams for quite some time because she was pregnant at the time.

I'm pretty torn about the whole situation and my own preventative/diagnostic health care around it - I have been so remiss in getting the routine testing that has been recommended to me because of my mother's early-in-life cancer and I often feel paralyzed around that decision and torn by the competing information out there. However, it is still seriously problematic for people to recommend useless diagnostic tests over actual diagnostic tests and to make people feel like they've got a free pass on cancer because they eat more vegetables than the average Jane. Those actions are still incredibly hurtful to women. So it would be awesome if those people stopped doing stupid shiitake like that and also if medical practitioners started practicing evidence-based medicine.

My sister found her cancer visually, too--she noticed a ridge in her breast when she examined them in the mirror. I started getting sent for mammograms early (I think starting at 35) because my sister had breast cancer before age 40 so I'm considered at risk.

I know from my own experience with mammography--the surveillance doesn't necessarily end there meaning, if they find something they want to investigate further from a mammography study, I've been sent for an ultrasound and and an MRI and sometimes biopsy. At this point, I've been biopsied twice and thoroughly examined and they have a good baseline for my breasts so they are alert to any future changes which could signal a problem. I feel my boobs are all mapped out. They have also been discussed at a Tumor Board, the thought of which amuses me because I have a dark sense of humor and I also had this unusual lesion in my breast at one point which bore discussion with a panel of surgeons, apparently, because it was a rare finding. Also, I believe the diagnostic equipment is ever more sensitive and is picking up things it wouldn't have earlier, or so I've been told. I get a mammogram every six months and ultrasound at this point as recommended by my surgeon but that is a personal decision--not everyone will make the same choice.

_________________
"I'm sorry! I'm Canadian!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:00 pm 
Offline
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3611
Location: It's hot. All the time.
seitanicverses wrote:
Ariann wrote:
The other thing the research shows is that it's pointless for women to do monthly breast exams, because we generally suck at them anyway, and it's very rare for such an exam to turn up anything worth looking at (and the problem of then biopsying worrying lumps and increasing iatrogenic problems without actually diagnosing more cancers). On the other hand, my mother found her breast cancer through a self-exam. She was many years too young to start mammograms and also probably would have missed out on professional breast exams for quite some time because she was pregnant at the time.

I'm pretty torn about the whole situation and my own preventative/diagnostic health care around it - I have been so remiss in getting the routine testing that has been recommended to me because of my mother's early-in-life cancer and I often feel paralyzed around that decision and torn by the competing information out there. However, it is still seriously problematic for people to recommend useless diagnostic tests over actual diagnostic tests and to make people feel like they've got a free pass on cancer because they eat more vegetables than the average Jane. Those actions are still incredibly hurtful to women. So it would be awesome if those people stopped doing stupid shiitake like that and also if medical practitioners started practicing evidence-based medicine.

My sister found her cancer visually, too--she noticed a ridge in her breast when she examined them in the mirror. I started getting sent for mammograms early (I think starting at 35) because my sister had breast cancer before age 40 so I'm considered at risk.

I know from my own experience with mammography--the surveillance doesn't necessarily end there meaning, if they find something they want to investigate further from a mammography study, I've been sent for an ultrasound and and an MRI and sometimes biopsy. At this point, I've been biopsied twice and thoroughly examined and they have a good baseline for my breasts so they are alert to any future changes which could signal a problem. I feel my boobs are all mapped out. They have also been discussed at a Tumor Board, the thought of which amuses me because I have a dark sense of humor and I also had this unusual lesion in my breast at one point which bore discussion with a panel of surgeons, apparently, because it was a rare finding. Also, I believe the diagnostic equipment is ever more sensitive and is picking up things it wouldn't have earlier, or so I've been told. I get a mammogram every six months and ultrasound at this point as recommended by my surgeon but that is a personal decision--not everyone will make the same choice.

My doctor said that the most important thing was that they got a baseline because of my family history. The women I know who had breast cancer found it during self exams.

Food is not medicine. The ethical issue with Dr. Fuhrman is that he is not so subtly suggesting that if you don't follow his advice and you get cancer, it is all your fault. That's a horrible message to put forth.

_________________
A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-Dub
Dessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. Fezza
You people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:14 pm 
Offline
Nooch of Earl
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3734
Location: Bella Napoli
Ariann wrote:
seitanicverses wrote:
But also, of course the research HAS been looked at and affects recommendations from cancer organizations/the CDC/etc., but there's also a disconnect between researchers'/public health professionals' advice and what individual practitioners tell their patients to do. Like, it's clear that most women don't benefit from mammography before age 50, but that doesn't mean most doctors don't start recommending them at 40. And it's clear that there's a point later in life where it becomes pointless to have mammograms, because most breast cancers in the very old grow so slowly that you will die of old age before the cancer affects your life.



I don't want to make it sound like I think diet is a replacement for medicine and mammography (I really don't), but I wonder if the recommendations for individuals SHOULD be different based on their lifestyle. The recommendation was upped because false positives were doing more harm than the undetected cancers were between those ages, right? So as a person who to the best of my knowledge is somewhat low risk (no family history, plant-based diet, non smoker, flat-chested, nursing the baby who would not wean, etc.), I don't worry a lot about it. If a doctor suggested I start getting mammograms when I turn 40 I would be asking a lot of questions about why. I'm not even convinced I need them at 50.

It actually seems like there's a pretty strong tradition of recommending more screening than necessary, then whittling that down after discovering it's doing more harm than good. Pap smears and prostate cancers are other examples. I think it's a valid question of whether it's useful to screen people who eat a plant-based diet for disease the same as those who don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:28 pm 
Offline
WRETCHED
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 8648
Location: Maryland/DC area
annak wrote:
It actually seems like there's a pretty strong tradition of recommending more screening than necessary, then whittling that down after discovering it's doing more harm than good. Pap smears and prostate cancers are other examples. I think it's a valid question of whether it's useful to screen people who eat a plant-based diet for disease the same as those who don't.


I don't mind extra screening. It also helps that they are actively working to improve screening like pap smears are now every 3 years. My husband has a risk for skin cancer so he has to go to a dermatologist every year and get checked, I don't. I had a breast lump, I had a mammography, then an ultrasound due to it. Due to my age, they said it was difficult to get a good view but everything looked benign and now they have a baseline. So if I go in 5 years from now, they have something to compare with. Obviously we can make our own choices but if someone following a non plant-based diet has a 5% chance of getting cancer and someone following a plant-based diet has a 1%, I wouldn't want to be that 1%. I think we need to look at the whole picture rather than giving people a false sense of confidence.

Also, the studies I read were based on the seventh day adventist which is generally a group that has a pretty fixed diet for their entire life. And since we know cancer can start many years (20+ years) before it shows up, basing our habits on a study of life long vegetarians/vegans, probably isn't the way to go. I've been vegan for 6 years, I'm not convinced I have a better chance of not getting cancer than someone who has never been vegan.

_________________
You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:36 pm 
Offline
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3611
Location: It's hot. All the time.
annak wrote:
Ariann wrote:
seitanicverses wrote:
But also, of course the research HAS been looked at and affects recommendations from cancer organizations/the CDC/etc., but there's also a disconnect between researchers'/public health professionals' advice and what individual practitioners tell their patients to do. Like, it's clear that most women don't benefit from mammography before age 50, but that doesn't mean most doctors don't start recommending them at 40. And it's clear that there's a point later in life where it becomes pointless to have mammograms, because most breast cancers in the very old grow so slowly that you will die of old age before the cancer affects your life.



I don't want to make it sound like I think diet is a replacement for medicine and mammography (I really don't), but I wonder if the recommendations for individuals SHOULD be different based on their lifestyle. The recommendation was upped because false positives were doing more harm than the undetected cancers were between those ages, right? So as a person who to the best of my knowledge is somewhat low risk (no family history, plant-based diet, non smoker, flat-chested, nursing the baby who would not wean, etc.), I don't worry a lot about it. If a doctor suggested I start getting mammograms when I turn 40 I would be asking a lot of questions about why. I'm not even convinced I need them at 50.

It actually seems like there's a pretty strong tradition of recommending more screening than necessary, then whittling that down after discovering it's doing more harm than good. Pap smears and prostate cancers are other examples. I think it's a valid question of whether it's useful to screen people who eat a plant-based diet for disease the same as those who don't.

There are vegans who get cancer, who have high cholesterol, who get heart disease. Your diet cannot protect you from chronic illness. We don't know enough to say that. We also know that people can eat animal foods in moderation and be healthy.

_________________
A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-Dub
Dessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. Fezza
You people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who challenges your feminism in your life?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:58 pm 
Offline
Nooch of Earl
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3734
Location: Bella Napoli
linanil wrote:
I don't mind extra screening. It also helps that they are actively working to improve screening like pap smears are now every 3 years. My husband has a risk for skin cancer so he has to go to a dermatologist every year and get checked, I don't. I had a breast lump, I had a mammography, then an ultrasound due to it. Due to my age, they said it was difficult to get a good view but everything looked benign and now they have a baseline. So if I go in 5 years from now, they have something to compare with. Obviously we can make our own choices but if someone following a non plant-based diet has a 5% chance of getting cancer and someone following a plant-based diet has a 1%, I wouldn't want to be that 1%. I think we need to look at the whole picture rather than giving people a false sense of confidence.

Also, the studies I read were based on the seventh day adventist which is generally a group that has a pretty fixed diet for their entire life. And since we know cancer can start many years (20+ years) before it shows up, basing our habits on a study of life long vegetarians/vegans, probably isn't the way to go. I've been vegan for 6 years, I'm not convinced I have a better chance of not getting cancer than someone who has never been vegan.



The thing is, though, that taking a "more screening == better" approach - and most people seem to, look at how much resistance there was when the recommendations for mammograms changed, as though it was some kind of Big Government scheme to deny people heatlhcare - is that it does active harm.

Here's an essay about early detection not necessarily improving outcomes:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/1 ... tion/?_r=0

and here's an example of an article about aggressive screening causing unnecessary treatment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/healt ... state.html

There is a level at which, statistically, the total harm across a population from unnecessary treatment that would never have been done without these screenings exceeds the harm from cancers that would go undetected if the screening were scaled back. This doesn't seem like an easily accepted truth, for lots of reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4369 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 ... 175  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum and fancied up by What Cheer