"Men’s Rights Activist" in action.
I did the sketch for this a few days ago and was going to make a more finished version for today, but my week was a little interesting.
So have the quick-colored and cleaned-up sketch.
Happy 50th Sea World. I’m bringing out the reality of that celebration. 50 years of piling up dead Shamus for human amusement.
Such an occasion, right?
New Brunswick’s only private abortion clinic has been fighting with the province for 20 years to secure funding, but its an online crowdfunding campaign that may ultimately preserve Maritime women’s access to safe and timely abortions.
The Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton is slated to close when their lease expires at the end of July due to lack of funds. Unlike every other province with private abortion clinics, the New Brunswick government refuses to provide funding for abortion services unless they are performed in a hospital and are deemed “medically necessary” by two doctors.
With time running out, more than 1,100 people have now donated more than $100,000 to a crowdfunding campaign on FundRazr.com. The group behind the campaign, Reproductive Justice NB (RJNB), plans to use the funds to negotiate a new lease agreement for the clinic’s building on Brunswick Street in Fredericton.
“I am 80 years old. As a nurse in London in the 1950′s, the first death I encountered was a 41-year-old mother who was poor and couldn’t face having more children and suffered a botched abortion. I learned then that there are only safe and unsafe abortions and it is usually those without resources who suffer unsafe abortions,” wrote one anonymous donor.
“I had an abortion at 20 years old. I would never want anyone else to be without the options that I had readily available to me,” wrote another.
In a press release earlier this month, RJNB chair Kathleen Pye acknowledged that extending the lease was a “bandaid solution” — it may keep the clinic door’s open but it doesn’t change the reality of poor abortion service access in both New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, especially for those who are most vulnerable.
Prior to 1988, the only way women could access legal abortions was if a “Therapeutic Abortion Committee” of three doctors deemed the procedure necessary. When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down those restrictions, they noted that the delay caused by this committee put women at greater risk for physical and psychological harm. The federal government has also since ruled that provinces must provide funding for private clinics performing “medically necessary” services.
Pro-choice advocates say the situation in New Brunswick flies in the face of both these rulings.
According to RJNB, the Morgentaler Clinic was performing more than half of the abortions in New Brunswick, at a cost of $700 to $850, paid out of pocket. Unlike abortions paid for by the New Brunswick government, women do not need the permission of two doctors to go to the clinic, and can simply refer themselves.
The clinics says 10 per cent of its clientele come from P.E.I., where there is no abortion access whatsoever. P.E.I. women seeking an abortion can be referred to a hospital in Halifax but although the government will cover the cost of the procedure, travel costs are left up to the woman. A proposal was recently brought forward from three physicians willing to perform abortions on the Island, but it was rejected by P.E.I.’s health authority.
In both provinces, waiting to go through government-sanctioned channels can cause delays for a procedure where timing is everything. Generally speaking, the earlier an abortion is performed the safer it is for the woman. Ninety per cent of abortions in Canada are performed in the first trimester, when the fewest complications can be expected. Waiting for approval threatens access to a safe abortion.
For women without the time or resources to get approval from two doctors — recent immigrants, teenagers or those living in poverty, for example — may also face difficulty accessing timely services in these provinces. Add in the cost of travel and the situation becomes more dire. As is, whether in a hospital or the Morgentaler Clinic, a key part of reproductive health services for women is only accessible to those with enough privilege to get there.
So far, the government of New Brunswick has expressed no interest in reexamining their abortion regulations.
ast year the Journal of the American Medical Association released a study aiming to determine the relationship between body mass index and the risk of premature death. Body mass index, or BMI, is the ratio between your height and weight. According to the National Institutes of Health, you are “normal weight” if your ratio is between 18.5-24.9. Everything over that is “overweight” or “obese” and everything under is “underweight.”
This study was a meta-analysis, which is an analysis of a collection of existing studies that systematically measures the sum of our knowledge. In this case, the authors analyzed 97 studies that included a combined 2.88 million individuals and over 270,000 deaths. They found that overweight individuals had a lower risk of premature death than so-called normal weight individuals and there was no relationship between being somewhat obese and the rate of early death. Only among people in the high range of obesity was there a correlation between their weight and a higher risk of premature death.
Here’s what it looked like.
This is two columns of studies plotted according to the hazard ratio they reported for people. This comparison is between people who are “overweight” (BMI = 25-29.9) and people who are “normal weight” (BMI = 18.5-24.9). Studies that fall below the line marked 1.0 found a lower rate of premature death and studies above the line found a higher rate.
Just by eyeballing it, you can confirm that there is not a strong correlation between weight and premature death, at least in this population. When the scientists ran statistical analyses, the math showed that there is a statistically significant relationship between being “overweight” and a lower risk of death.
Here’s the same data, but comparing the risk of premature death among people who are “normal weight” (BMI = 18.5-24.9) and people who are somewhat “obese” (BMI = 30-34.9). Again, eyeballing the results suggest that there’s not much correlation and, in fact, statistical analysis found none.
Finally, here are the results comparing “normal weight” (BMI = 18.5-24.9) and people who are quite “obese” (BMI = 35 or higher). In this case, we do see a relationship between risk of premature death in body weight.
It’s almost funny that the National Institutes of Health use the word normal when talking about BMI. It’s certainly not the norm – the average BMI in the U.S. falls slightly into the “overweight” category (26.6 for adult men and 25.5 for adult women) — and it’s not related to health. It’s clearly simply normative. It’s related to a socially constructed physical ideal that has little relationship to what physicians and public health advocates are supposed to be concerned with. Normal is judgmental, but if they changed the word to healthy, they have to entirely rejigger their prescriptions.
So, do we even have an obesity epidemic? Perhaps not if we use health as a marker instead of some arbitrary decision to hate fat. Paul Campos, covering this story for the New York Times, points out:
If the government were to redefine normal weight as one that does not increase the risk of death, then about 130 million of the 165 million American adults currently categorized as overweight and obese would be re-categorized as normal weight instead.
It’s worth saying again: if we are measuring by the risk of premature death, then 79% of the people we currently shame for being overweight or obese would be recategorized as perfectly fine. Ideal, even. Pleased to be plump, let’s say, knowing that a body that is a happy balance of soft and strong is the kind of body that will carry them through a lifetime.
"The panelists addressed the “Lean In” phenomenon, articulating how and why Sheryl Sandberg’s focus on self-improvement – rather than structural barriers and collective action to overcome them – angered quite a few feminists on the left."
APARTHEID IN DETROIT: WATER FOR CORPORATIONS, NOT FOR PEOPLE
- Carl Gibson, is a spokesman and organizer for US Uncut, a nonviolent, creative direct-action movement to stop budget cuts by getting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Contact Carl on the Commons or read his other articles on www.occupy.com
- Citizen Radio
- Detroit Water Brigade
- Detroit Water Brigade
“After news outlets connected Rodger to groups in the MRA sphere, Paul Elam, founder of A Voice for Men, asserted that his organization is committed to nonviolence and that Rodger was not a member. However, Katie McDonough writes at Salon that ‘until the moment that he is alleged to have killed six women and men, Elliot Rodger was every bit the same as the other men who are defined by their resentment toward women and their sense of bitter victimization in the world.’”
Read more here: http://rhrc.us/1naX8N7
This came from a 32 year old man.
Literally all she said was “no.”
I’ve come to understand why, during my internet dating years, so many women responded to my inquiries (I promise I wasn’t creepy) by not responding at all. At the time it drove me crazy, the silence, even more so than the rejections. We’re both on this webspace looking to meet people, can’t you give me a simple “no thanks” so I know when to walk away?
Now I get it. If you’re a woman on the internet, every single interaction is a roll of the dice and you can never tell when that roll will come up “u ugly bitch” so it’s safer and easier to just not say anything. In the online dating world, that becomes common sense.
But never forget: there are men who don’t even wait for that reply. Just being a woman online can be enough to trigger a dice roll. Imagine if every tweet or article you wrote meant a personal insult came your way. Sure, you can block, you can mute, you can ignore, but eventually you’d start to wonder if it wouldn’t be easier to not say anything.
That’s how silencing works and it makes me furious. And to those who insist that women must “grow thicker skin” and simply “accept” the reality of online abuse, here’s a revelation for you: anyone who already suffers through a daily flood of insults or threats just to exist online has thicker skin than you. They’re the ones with the courage, not you and your false keyboard bravado.
To say nothing of the women who face real-life harassment every day, be it catcalls from strangers, an oppressive workplace, or a real-life stalker. Compared to them, we’re all cowards.
Bless you, sir.