Mind Hacks: Race bias and the menstrual cycle

Posted on by
Reply

Translation:  the usual BS about women and their periods.  As one commenter observes, how come no one studies the psychological impact of male hormonal cycles?  In a culture that objectifies women and still treats violence against women trivially, perhaps there are logical reasons for women’s “risk avoidance”?

Mind Hacks: Race bias and the menstrual cycle.

Nixon and Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

RICHARD NIXON FAREWELLYesterday’s New York Times reported on a newly released Nixon tape that reveals the president’s private thoughts on abortion.  Although the President made no public statements about the Roe v. Wade decision, he made the following private statements on January 22, 1973, the day the decision was handed down (audio file here):

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

I’m somewhat surprised that Nixon supported abortion at all.  Yet, I’m not as surprised as others that he supported neoeugenics — i.e. selective reduction of births of “undesirables.” As Rebecca Kluchin demonstrates in her excellent new book, Fit to Be Tied, forced sterilization of poor women, especially women of color, continued well into the later half of the twentieth century, at the same time that more privileged white women were asserting their rights to reproductive self-determination.  So, Nixon’s views, while certainly bigoted and abhorrent, were similar to the views of some population control experts who saw limiting reproduction as a solution to the “culture of poverty”.

Shout out to grad school buddy — exposing publishing shenanigans of Big Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

via Tenured Radical.  Fellow Cornellian Sergio Sismondo, a Philosophy Professor at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, has an excellent new article in the online journal Academic Matters.  I heard Sergio give an earlier version of this research at a conference we attended at Oxford a few years ago.  He suggests that the relationship between Big Pharma, physicians, and major academic journals is “too close for comfort” or patient safety for that matter. Sergio describes what he calls the “ghost management” of scientific publications by Big Pharma:

“Pharmaceutical companies sponsor a considerable amount of research, typically performed by for-profit contract research organizations (CROs). On the basis of that data and the publicly available medical research, drug companies and their agents produce a significant percentage of the manuscripts on major current drugs. These manuscripts are then “authored” by academic researchers, whose contribution ranges from having supplied some of the patients for a clinical trial, to editing the manuscript, to simply signing off on the final draft. The companies then submit these manuscripts to medical journals, where they fare quite well and are published. The published articles contribute to accepted scientific opinions, but the circumstances of their production remain largely invisible. When the articles are useful, the marketing departments of the drug companies involved will buy thousands of reprints, which sales representatives (reps) can give to physicians.”

This is even worse than the free lunches, “retreats,” and swag the reps hand out — at least those are transparent attempts to buy business.  So much for “evidence-based medicine.”

Sergio’s research suggests that as much as 40 percent of  medical journal articles on  major drugs is ghost managed.   He argues that the pharmaceutical companies have developed a “new form of plagiarism” with the willing participation of professors eager to expand their list of publications.

University P&T committees take note — the unbelievably long CV you are reading could be a sham!

Sarah Palin goes to Seneca Falls

Posted on by
3

senecafalls060509cvia Feminist Law Professors, who calls the visit “cringeworthy.”  I’m not so sure — let’s keep in mind that these sound bites are often taken out of context. Also, let’s face it, a lot of so-called progressive columnists like to make Palin look like a stupid hillbilly. [who the hell cares about her pedicure — how about discussing the substance of her visit? To paraphrase Melissa McEwan, if you take misogynist pot-shots at conservative women, you’re a fauxgressive, not a progressive]

I’d agree that mentioning Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion is annoying, but it’s also true.  Palin just neglects to mention the context — at the time, abortion was a dangerous procedure. Anthony also believed that the sexual double standard caused women to have abortions.  (“When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged.” 1869)

Palin’s remark that “I think the more things change, the more they stay the same in some arenas,” is dead on IMHO.  At least she’s trying to appreciate early feminists and the ways they paved the way for her and other female leaders.  Here’s a slideshow of the visit from the Syracuse, NY local news.

Folks, we can’t always preach to the choir.  If Palin’s visit to Seneca Falls can convert other conservative women to the cause of feminism, then this is a good thing.

Lessons for Girls: Love your body

Posted on by
4

ck.brooke2

This post is my humble contribution to a meme started by Historiann.  I’m also going to riff off another post of hers on Brooke Shields.   Now, my adolescent self would hardly have put these two together.  I both hated and emulated her for those Calvin Klein ads — they were one of the (many) reasons I disliked my body.  I dieted strenuously and got real skinny so I could fit into my pair of CKs.  Other girls in my high school went further and were hospitalized for anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders.

In graduate school, I worked with Joan Jacobs Brumberg, and found that what she calls  “bad body fever”  has been a problem that has plagued women for at least a century.  Now that I’m approaching middle age, I’m more tolerant about what my body looks like, even though women of a certain age — like Brooke — who still look fabulous have raised the bar considerably.

Well it turns out that Brooke also had a negative body image as an adolescent and young adult. So, to help out girls today, she works with the SMART girls program, sponsored Tupperware’s Chain of Confidence campaign (and before you start dissing Tupperware, keep in mind that this company started as a way for stay-at-home Moms to make their own money  My Mom sold Tupperware — it pays pretty well, plus you get lots of freebies.  I still loves the ones I got from her).  Between that and her campaign to raise awareness and reduce stigma about postpartum depression, I now really like and admire her.

Another, non-corporate initiative that I like a lot is Love Your Body, sponsored by the National Organization for Women.  It gives great advice on how to protest offensive ads and promote healthy body images. Organize an event on your campus — we do it every year at CCSU.