As I always preface everything I say and write with some disclaimer, I maintain true to tradition. This is not actually a letter addressed to Dr. Fausto-Sterling, although I would probably consider her opinion and experience to be vastly more substantial and legitimate than the sources of this article.
I don't regularly peruse CBS news's website for articles, but this one caught my attention and nearly knocked me off my chair. In an article published just over two years ago, at www.cbsnews.com that asserted that women who take oral contraceptives are choosing the "wrong sex partners."
Admittedly, I read the article, because I thought it was about something completely different, but alas, it was an article that is probably more fitting confined to the pages of Cosmo magazine than affiliated with a news organization boasting the careers of legitimate journalists like Diane Sawyer, Mike Wallace, and Barbara Walters, to name a few.
The information was published from WebMD. That in of itself should find the author of the article unemployed. I have no idea where he is today, but I would venture a guess he is not a medical correspondent for CNN.
Loosely, the article, which can be found in its entirety at the link above, states that in a study of 60 HETEROSEXUAL women, when taking oral contraceptives, they found a correlation linking the desired pheromones of the men they were attracted to, as well as their genetic similarity to the women surveyed.
I am not a medical detective, despite my addiction to House, but I'm certain if I tried to publish a "study" of only sixty people and neglected to normalize the data at all, I would receive hearty laughter and a few raised eyebrows.
My larger concern, and the reason for the blog rant has more to do with the title. Dr. Fausto-Sterling (who is also a renowned professor at Brown University School of Medicine) would probably either completely dismiss this ignorant lack of comprehensive data, or completely attack the heart of the non-scholarly issue. Someday if I ever meet Dr. Fausto-Sterling in person, I doubt this will be the first question on the list.
Anyhow, take care and have a pleasant day!
-Shayna
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
On Gay Marriage and Growing Up: Things I Want, Eventually!
So the other day, in a news-worthy state senate vote, New York passed gay marriage, by a margin of about one vote. This is a big deal for a few reasons. First, there is another nail in the coffin of bigotry and discrimination, nationwide. Second, there is no residency requirements to have a marriage license in New York state, which means anyone can run, fly, drive, train, or swim there and get married to any qualifying person they choose! (By qualifying, I'm guessing the only things stopping a marriage license in NY would be if an individual is already married to someone else, underage (and not emancipated) or not legally competent. So apart from the children, mentally incompetent, and polygamists, this is a pretty awesome day!
From a more political standpoint, this ruling is a really, really, really big deal, because not only did it fail two years ago in a Democrat controlled state senate, but it passed, now in a Republican dominated senate. Almost immediately after the ruling, Pres. Obama released a comment saying he's happy about the ruling, but that he still doesn't support gay marriage. Um excuse me? He wants equal rights for all, but just not that legally binding ceremonial thing that comes with tax benefits, hospital visits, adoption, and stuff. I think he wants that other type of thing, whereby two gay men or lesbians just live together and get introduced as "my friend, [so and so]."
I wish that the leader of the free world had more gall to stand up to his own convictions and previous promises to fight for LGBT rights ( um that means gay marriage, too, Mr. President.) instead of caving and turning these last few months before primary season into some quasi-conservative thing so John Boehner and the rest don't run him out of Washington.
It would be a lie if I said I didn't comprehend it, but the worse, and truer fact of the matter is, at the point where the president has such a high approval rating, (um ending both wars, finding Bin Laden, DADT, and so on and so on) now is the time for BOLD action. If he truly wants to go down in history books for being as great or greater than his predecessors, it stands to reason he wouldn't want to look like the shy kid on the playground, pushing dirt around with the toe of his shoe, mumbling "Aw, shucks," while trying not to make eye contact.
NYC's Road to Gay Marriage
Op Ed from Times June 27, 2011
Well, I believe that that dead horse has been beaten enough. Now on to "growing up." I doubt this will be what you were thinking it might be, but here goes anyway!!!
I'm still working on that fine balance between living as an adult, and behaving like a teenager. I've found that I'm not particularly fond of going to bed early, eating cereal with some form of bran in it, and skimming the WSJ on my way to a "nine-to-five" are not appealing aspects of life to me at all. So if this is what you were thinking I was going to say, congratulations, you managed to evade my fake-out reverse psychology. I'm super-mature, as you can tell. Honestly, since I don't drink anymore, there's nothing I do that requires me to be more than a teenager anyhow. I miss the simple days, as a friend recalls fondly, "of just waking up on Saturday morning, eating cereal and watching cartoons. Those days rocked."
We live in such a fast-paced, cutthroat industrial technological culture that we actually spend very little time interacting with real people in person. A few weeks ago, I was walking down Broad St. (in North Philly) and passed dozens, if not a hundred or so people. Nearly every single one had an iPod with ear buds in, or were busy maneuvering the sidewalk traffic, trying not to spill hot coffee, or lose that ever important game of Angry Birds. Not one would make eye contact or return my "good morning."
When did adulthood become synonymous with self-absorbed? Manners weren't exactly beaten into my childhood as one might suspect from meeting me. I believe in being polite, courteous, and waiting my turn. The drill sergeants in basic training instilled the obligation of greeting everyone you encounter. Not only is it a good way to meet people, it shows some level of respect. I don't expect that the dozens or so of relatively affluent people I encountered needed my respect or attention, but none even looked up long enough to reciprocate making eye contact. These are the things that make me feel as though I'm from a different time, transported here against my will and better judgment, to see how well I can acclimate.
Kidding aside, my personal belief still remains. It is easy to actually be kind to strangers (a quality I've observed many times over in my girlfriend) if you actually care about people. By virtue of statistics, it is easy to conclude most people don't really care about a random stranger. I must also factor in the crime-potential, as well. *
This last part is more of a mental note to remind me of the imperfect, selfish nature of people, so that I don't chuck my hot coffee at some arbitrary person who happened to pretend to ignore me so that he or she could get to that next level of Angry Birds. I have some bran to eat and stock market numbers to decipher.
Peace, Love, and Manners,
Shayna
* So it could also be a potential factor that I live in not a particularly safe neighborhood of a major city, and that people indigenous to the area are more accustomed to not making eye-contact, as to avoid attention.
From a more political standpoint, this ruling is a really, really, really big deal, because not only did it fail two years ago in a Democrat controlled state senate, but it passed, now in a Republican dominated senate. Almost immediately after the ruling, Pres. Obama released a comment saying he's happy about the ruling, but that he still doesn't support gay marriage. Um excuse me? He wants equal rights for all, but just not that legally binding ceremonial thing that comes with tax benefits, hospital visits, adoption, and stuff. I think he wants that other type of thing, whereby two gay men or lesbians just live together and get introduced as "my friend, [so and so]."
I wish that the leader of the free world had more gall to stand up to his own convictions and previous promises to fight for LGBT rights ( um that means gay marriage, too, Mr. President.) instead of caving and turning these last few months before primary season into some quasi-conservative thing so John Boehner and the rest don't run him out of Washington.
It would be a lie if I said I didn't comprehend it, but the worse, and truer fact of the matter is, at the point where the president has such a high approval rating, (um ending both wars, finding Bin Laden, DADT, and so on and so on) now is the time for BOLD action. If he truly wants to go down in history books for being as great or greater than his predecessors, it stands to reason he wouldn't want to look like the shy kid on the playground, pushing dirt around with the toe of his shoe, mumbling "Aw, shucks," while trying not to make eye contact.
NYC's Road to Gay Marriage
I'm still working on that fine balance between living as an adult, and behaving like a teenager. I've found that I'm not particularly fond of going to bed early, eating cereal with some form of bran in it, and skimming the WSJ on my way to a "nine-to-five" are not appealing aspects of life to me at all. So if this is what you were thinking I was going to say, congratulations, you managed to evade my fake-out reverse psychology. I'm super-mature, as you can tell. Honestly, since I don't drink anymore, there's nothing I do that requires me to be more than a teenager anyhow. I miss the simple days, as a friend recalls fondly, "of just waking up on Saturday morning, eating cereal and watching cartoons. Those days rocked."
We live in such a fast-paced, cutthroat industrial technological culture that we actually spend very little time interacting with real people in person. A few weeks ago, I was walking down Broad St. (in North Philly) and passed dozens, if not a hundred or so people. Nearly every single one had an iPod with ear buds in, or were busy maneuvering the sidewalk traffic, trying not to spill hot coffee, or lose that ever important game of Angry Birds. Not one would make eye contact or return my "good morning."
When did adulthood become synonymous with self-absorbed? Manners weren't exactly beaten into my childhood as one might suspect from meeting me. I believe in being polite, courteous, and waiting my turn. The drill sergeants in basic training instilled the obligation of greeting everyone you encounter. Not only is it a good way to meet people, it shows some level of respect. I don't expect that the dozens or so of relatively affluent people I encountered needed my respect or attention, but none even looked up long enough to reciprocate making eye contact. These are the things that make me feel as though I'm from a different time, transported here against my will and better judgment, to see how well I can acclimate.
Kidding aside, my personal belief still remains. It is easy to actually be kind to strangers (a quality I've observed many times over in my girlfriend) if you actually care about people. By virtue of statistics, it is easy to conclude most people don't really care about a random stranger. I must also factor in the crime-potential, as well. *
This last part is more of a mental note to remind me of the imperfect, selfish nature of people, so that I don't chuck my hot coffee at some arbitrary person who happened to pretend to ignore me so that he or she could get to that next level of Angry Birds. I have some bran to eat and stock market numbers to decipher.
Peace, Love, and Manners,
Shayna
* So it could also be a potential factor that I live in not a particularly safe neighborhood of a major city, and that people indigenous to the area are more accustomed to not making eye-contact, as to avoid attention.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
OMG! I was trying to Google something and it auto-filled after "who is a-" http://bit.ly/fZB7Kp googlediscriminates
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Brazillian Hate Crimes
I have very mixed feelings about posting a story on the same day about the same thing that Joe.My.God had on his blog, but in posting it, it passes my litmus test: Would Margaret Cho re-post it? Yes, she most certainly would...So here it is.
Nearly a month ago, Priscila, a transgendered woman from Brazil was shot to death. Brazil is supposedly (I've never been there, so I can't say) among the most homo/trans/queer-phobic places in the world. The current president's platform (like most mass-appeasing politician's) was that human rights are core. The discrimination that Priscila faced is common, and pushes many transgendered Brazilians into sex-work. Watch the video, sign the petition, and remember that your vote here counts, too.
Discrimination, adversity, violence, prejudice, intolerance, ignorance, hate... America is a great country to be, as we all have the right to be. If you have never done so, vote. Get involved with the HRC, or the ACLU, or NOW. Some organization geared toward making a change. It is 2011, and we still segregate, discriminate, and hate. All people are created equal. Period. So, let's stop treating other people like less than people.
http://www.allout.org/petition/priscila
Nearly a month ago, Priscila, a transgendered woman from Brazil was shot to death. Brazil is supposedly (I've never been there, so I can't say) among the most homo/trans/queer-phobic places in the world. The current president's platform (like most mass-appeasing politician's) was that human rights are core. The discrimination that Priscila faced is common, and pushes many transgendered Brazilians into sex-work. Watch the video, sign the petition, and remember that your vote here counts, too.
Discrimination, adversity, violence, prejudice, intolerance, ignorance, hate... America is a great country to be, as we all have the right to be. If you have never done so, vote. Get involved with the HRC, or the ACLU, or NOW. Some organization geared toward making a change. It is 2011, and we still segregate, discriminate, and hate. All people are created equal. Period. So, let's stop treating other people like less than people.
http://www.allout.org/petition/priscila
Brazil needs to pass the Anti-Homophobia law because ...
I'd like cheese on my entire family!: When Food Attacks!
This blog I discovered was pretty illuminating. At surface level, it is really easy to say that I don't have food issues. To actually think about it, I probably have enough issues to warrant a subscription. (Sorry for the lame pun.) America is such a weird food place. I've been to lots of other countries where the combination of assigning values to food, coupled with the obsession to fit an arbitrary, unrealistic, and unhealthy body image are just not present. In Germany, most of the people I met were pretty Americanized, socially, so our irreverent, idiotic way of imposing our ridiculous beliefs and standards onto others is pretty apparent. I noticed some of this in France, as well, but I will preface this statement with the fact that most of my time in France was in Paris, perhaps the tourism capitol of Europe...
I just got my lunch from a 7-11. There are so many many many things wrong with this statement. Instead of a nutritious, well balanced, planned meal, I, like most college students, opted for something quick, unhealthy, sometimes in a bar-form, and loaded with chemicals. The college-food trifecta: cheap, quick, and accessible!
I have also been guilty of buying into the "healthy label" nonsense. I drink diet soda, use Splenda in my coffee, eat sugar-free candy, pick baked chips over fried chips, etc. None of this really has anything to do with health. None of these products are necessarily healthier than their regular counterparts. The healthy alternative is the water and fruit or vegetable that I'm swapping out for coffee and chips. I must also disclaimer that I am a vegetarian (usually vegan, but sometimes I have a dairy relapse). But I knowingly keep using artificial sweetener and "low sodium" soy sauce on my lo-mein, because it has been instilled in me that to eat sugar leads to fat, and to have fat is to fail, and that to fail is unacceptable. Eating sugar, by proxy, is unacceptable.
I did not see very many artificial sweeteners in Europe during the two years I lived there. Mostly, there were packets of Equal, compulsory for diabetes compliance, but not the plethora of chemicals in a rainbow assortment that we Americans stand by.
I began to associate these feelings I'd had with some American myths that get perpetuated here, (especially after my humble beginnings into Women's Studies). I now know why I do what I do. I still get diet soda, but it is because I don't really like the taste of regular sucrose (what makes granulated sugar sweet), and I eat junk food, and I smoke. I no longer see this consumerism as a massive failure on my part. I might choose to make healthier decisions, but they are no longer deeply rooted in my American phobia of missing the ideal body size. I eat things which I like, mostly in moderation. Food should be about nutrition, not statistics and numbers on the back of a package. I have, to this day, not seen a banana with nutritional content painted on the peel (which I'm sure makes some people uneasy, I'm sure).
I'd like cheese on my entire family!: When Food Attacks!: "Many, many years ago, I stopped assigning moral value to food. Nommy noms are no longer 'good' or 'bad,' they are just food. Cakes are..."
Off With Their Heads!
It's been a while since I've blogged about something of substance. One could argue that I've indeed, never really blogged about anything of substance, and that the premise of blogging is, by nature not substantial!
Alas, here I am, again, writing.
I am a student at Temple University in Philadelphia, about to be greatly impacted by Gov. Corbett's budget cuts to public education. The school, (more specifically the Dean of College of Liberal Arts) has taken preemptive action to reduce spending. Great idea, but terrible ramifications. They decided to reduce spending by nearly 20 grand by eliminating the department heads of many of the programs of the liberal arts, and re-shuffle the programs under already existing programs (i.e. Women's Studies will now fall under Sociology). There are many, many, many problems with this (and the way they implemented it), chiefly that none of the department heads were consulted. Also, they were cut before the new budgetary design had been drafted. (Hence preemptive)
The two largest issues that the students in these programs will now face are a significant loss in assistance with their academic progression in these fields, as well as predictable losses in the number of courses offered in the affected programs.
Among the programs to be re-structured/maimed in the process: American Studies, Women's Studies, LGBT Studies, Jewish Studies, Asian Studies, among others. The irony inherent here, is, in case you haven't noticed, these are programs traditionally associated with discrimination, oppression, and adversity. Why should the academics associated with them be any different?!?
The cuts to the programs wouldn't be as "shock and awe," maybe, if all of the schools within Temple University had made similar cuts or "streamlining endeavors." But they didn't. The science departments made no changes to their programs whatsoever. There are dozens of programs in the School of Science and Technology that are considered "untouchable" because they are sciences. By the virtue of being a science program, they are able to apply for grants to do research and bring the university money. The arts, however, are not as fiscally virtuous, and therefore become another notch in the bedpost of capitalist casualties. This reinforces the false notion that the science programs are more useful than the arts, especially the humanities.
Are they? Of course not. Just because someone's life was saved by a chemical compound, doesn't mean that the quality of that life wasn't equally saved by discovering queer culture, or Jewish studies. Or any other humanities niche. It is thinking in terms of the discriminatory sweeping generalizations that tends to get us into trouble! It is time to accept and promote academic diversity instead of feeding into the corporate university eugenics of the arts.
There is very little coverage of this, so here are the links I could find.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/03/08/temple-u-head-urges-public-response-to-corbetts-education-budget-cuts/
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/119232609.html
Get involved. Act up. Use your free speech that has been fought for! If you pay to go to school, it SHOULD be up to you to study whatever you want to.
Alas, here I am, again, writing.
I am a student at Temple University in Philadelphia, about to be greatly impacted by Gov. Corbett's budget cuts to public education. The school, (more specifically the Dean of College of Liberal Arts) has taken preemptive action to reduce spending. Great idea, but terrible ramifications. They decided to reduce spending by nearly 20 grand by eliminating the department heads of many of the programs of the liberal arts, and re-shuffle the programs under already existing programs (i.e. Women's Studies will now fall under Sociology). There are many, many, many problems with this (and the way they implemented it), chiefly that none of the department heads were consulted. Also, they were cut before the new budgetary design had been drafted. (Hence preemptive)
The two largest issues that the students in these programs will now face are a significant loss in assistance with their academic progression in these fields, as well as predictable losses in the number of courses offered in the affected programs.
Among the programs to be re-structured/maimed in the process: American Studies, Women's Studies, LGBT Studies, Jewish Studies, Asian Studies, among others. The irony inherent here, is, in case you haven't noticed, these are programs traditionally associated with discrimination, oppression, and adversity. Why should the academics associated with them be any different?!?
The cuts to the programs wouldn't be as "shock and awe," maybe, if all of the schools within Temple University had made similar cuts or "streamlining endeavors." But they didn't. The science departments made no changes to their programs whatsoever. There are dozens of programs in the School of Science and Technology that are considered "untouchable" because they are sciences. By the virtue of being a science program, they are able to apply for grants to do research and bring the university money. The arts, however, are not as fiscally virtuous, and therefore become another notch in the bedpost of capitalist casualties. This reinforces the false notion that the science programs are more useful than the arts, especially the humanities.
Are they? Of course not. Just because someone's life was saved by a chemical compound, doesn't mean that the quality of that life wasn't equally saved by discovering queer culture, or Jewish studies. Or any other humanities niche. It is thinking in terms of the discriminatory sweeping generalizations that tends to get us into trouble! It is time to accept and promote academic diversity instead of feeding into the corporate university eugenics of the arts.
There is very little coverage of this, so here are the links I could find.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/03/08/temple-u-head-urges-public-response-to-corbetts-education-budget-cuts/
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/119232609.html
Get involved. Act up. Use your free speech that has been fought for! If you pay to go to school, it SHOULD be up to you to study whatever you want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)