Pre-98 on the student loan calculator looks wrong to me. I swear I had to start repaying my loan back way before I was earning £26000. That said, I think it's based on average salary, which would presumably have been lower back then. But yeah, it's a tad confusing.
That first link is the most evil, pernicious thing I've ever seen you post. If only we were good little women who had babies like we're meant to, then we won't get cancer. And please can we shut ourselves out of sight while we're having those icky period things, while we're at it.
Depo Provera injections stopped my periods for 10 years (which I thought was excellent) - but not so good for bones apparently... which I wish they'd known/stated/emphasised upfront. Also killed sex drive and reduced a lot of my Joie de Vivre - not surprising given what I was reading recently about the effects of high progesterone on the brain (increased suspicion/impaired social reasoning, IIRC, which to me suggests frontal lobe effects...).
I hate periods, and have never wanted kids, and b*ggering about with my hormones rarely leads to fun. But I doubt anything short of close simulation of actual pregnancy/lactation is gonna cut the mustard in terms of the equivalent protective health effects.
Do not forget that pregnancy has its own horrible and long-term risks (death [from any number of causes during pregnancy or birth or afterwards], diabetes, tooth loss, single or double incontinence, nasty perineum/vaginal tearing....) a lot of which seem to me equally as bad as cancer - and go on for more of your life too! [as do the kids themselves!]
I didn't get as strong a reaction to the article as your previous posters - it came off to me as a bit more neutral. But I'm not strongly reactive to emotionally-charged words (e.g cancer, pregnancy), and so may not be an average or indicative sample. Also there is very little in the article which is at all news to me or at all surprising [and all of that was about John Rock's personal convictions].
I can see why the article might get some (many) people's goat, though, it could have been written in a way that got the pertinent data from the studies over without even mentioning stuff like isolation during menstruation and all that - not vital to the gist. Could have just stated that the menstrual/pregnancy/breastfeeding status of the women was recorded.
Point is, there's lot of ways the article could have been more carefully written to ensure that there was a lot less risk of coming across all "you should be be barefoot and pregnant else you aren't a natural woman". And many people probably, and justifiably think that it *should* have.
Imagine what propagandal use an arch-conservative could easily put this article (as it is) to with minimal effort....
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2011-01-30 11:01 am
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I hate periods, and have never wanted kids, and b*ggering about with my hormones rarely leads to fun. But I doubt anything short of close simulation of actual pregnancy/lactation is gonna cut the mustard in terms of the equivalent protective health effects.
Do not forget that pregnancy has its own horrible and long-term risks (death [from any number of causes during pregnancy or birth or afterwards], diabetes, tooth loss, single or double incontinence, nasty perineum/vaginal tearing....) a lot of which seem to me equally as bad as cancer - and go on for more of your life too! [as do the kids themselves!]
I didn't get as strong a reaction to the article as your previous posters - it came off to me as a bit more neutral. But I'm not strongly reactive to emotionally-charged words (e.g cancer, pregnancy), and so may not be an average or indicative sample. Also there is very little in the article which is at all news to me or at all surprising [and all of that was about John Rock's personal convictions].
I can see why the article might get some (many) people's goat, though, it could have been written in a way that got the pertinent data from the studies over without even mentioning stuff like isolation during menstruation and all that - not vital to the gist. Could have just stated that the menstrual/pregnancy/breastfeeding status of the women was recorded.
Point is, there's lot of ways the article could have been more carefully written to ensure that there was a lot less risk of coming across all "you should be be barefoot and pregnant else you aren't a natural woman". And many people probably, and justifiably think that it *should* have.
Imagine what propagandal use an arch-conservative could easily put this article (as it is) to with minimal effort....
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)