Sarah Ibarruri's Journal
Hometown: North Florida
Home country: U.S.
Current location: North Florida
Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2005, 09:28 PM
Number of posts: 21,043
Hometown: North Florida
Home country: U.S.
Current location: North Florida
Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2005, 09:28 PM
Number of posts: 21,043
Hamas has always been a terrorist group. I prefer not to discuss this matter if you are someone who is in favor of terrorist groups. Thank you.
Every time my GP sees me walking into his office with high heeled shoes and high heeled boots, he always tells me the same thing: that I need to change shoes or I'm going to end up with big foot, leg, and spine problems.
I gotta admit I have a long-standing love affair with shoes, particularly high heeled ones. I'm not tall, and these make me taller. However, doing research on the Internet I found an x-ray of a woman's foot in a high heeled shoe and it scared the living daylights out of me, so I looked at the article. SCARY what we women do to our feet! I'm trying to come to terms with this and find the courage to wear better shoes, lower heeled shoes.
In any case, here's the article that scared some sense into me.
Are foot and ankle problems worse for women?
By Judith F. Baumhauer, MD, and Kathryn O’Connor, PT
... women’s feet are not just smaller versions of men’s feet.
A research study by Wunderlich and Cavanagh examining lower limb and foot measurements of approximately 300 men and 500 women in the U.S. Army concluded that biologic differences existed between male and female feet and legs. They noted significant differences in arch shape, size of the lateral side of the foot, great toe, and ball of the foot. Women, for example, had a wider forefoot, shorter arch length, and shorter metatarsals compared to men. This study was among the first to promote incorporating the structural differences between the female and male foot into the design and manufacturing of women’s shoes.
... Studies have shown that differences in the structure and size of the foot bones (specifically by measurements of metatarsal, phalangeal, calcaneal, and talar bones) have allowed for forensic identification of sex. ... Although the initial purpose of the study was not to identify sex differences, statistically significant disparities were noted. For instance, the study showed that women had a 20 percent to 25 percent lower volume and surface area in the subtalar, talonavicular, and ankle joints and up to 16 percent thinner cartilage. ...Women and men also have significant differences in gait. Studies by both Kerrigan and associates and Sepic and associates have shown that plantar flexion and range of motion of the ankle are greater in women, possibly due to greater laxity in female ligaments.
... the typical, more fashionable high-heeled shoe with a narrow toe box causes increased plantar pressure and toe crowding, which can cause bunions (hallux valgus), bunionettes, hammer toe, and even neuromas. ...Studies show that 88 percent of women wear shoes too small for their feet and 70 percent were noted to have associated hallux valgus deformity. ... hammer toe is four to five times more common in women. ...Shoes with a heel of 1.5" or higher increase knee torque with walking, which may be associated with the increase of knee osteoarthritis.
More at the link:
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:43 AM (196 replies)
I notice everything around me, and, having lived abroad, I noticed a huge difference in the work rules between Europe and the U.S.
Cashiers at stores and supermarkets in Europe are allowed to sit as they work;
Workers have a month (or longer) of vacation, and many, many holidays;
Cafeterias inside corporate buildings offer wine, and workers have wine during lunch (and return to lunch feeling quite good lol);
This, without even mentioning that they have unions, get paid more, and don't have to depend on jobs to have health care, which is socialized.
I think there's a treadmill attitude toward work here, the worker seen as the hamster, which does not exist in Europe.
I recall hearing someone tell how at her customer service job here in the U.S. (answering phones), the phones were very unbusy that day, and she had stood up to stretch and talk to the person in the next booth (who was also not busy). Suddenly, the manager approached her and said, "You can't just 'stand around' like that. You have to DO something. If you're not busy, sign off and go get a broom or something, sweep, we're not paying you to talk to your friends!"
There's a completely enslaving attitude about work in the U.S., the worker seen as the lazy bum, stealing money. And yet, recently I've been hearing how the American workplace is actually LESS productive than workplaces abroad.
Why Germans Have Longer Vacation Times and More Productivity
It seems many Americans are born hard-wired with the belief that productivity requires time. There are no shortcuts for a good, Puritan work ethic. It's the American Way, after all. We love stories of companies who started with nothing and worked like dogs to become massive successes. The Sam Waltons, the Bill Gates—these are true American heroes.
Self-sacrifice has almost always gone hand-in-hand with entrepreneurship and small businesses. We're capitalists, and he who works the most makes the most money at the end of the day. Or so it would seem.
Yet Europeans have always seemed to have taken a different route when it comes to the work/life balance. Germans on average work around 1,436 hours per year, versus the 1,804 hours Americans work. With those numbers it would be easy to conclude that Americans do more and would be more productive in the workforce. But we don't. Studies show that Germans get roughly the same amount of stuff done in fewer hours each week, and with more vacation time.
More at the link:
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:49 PM (74 replies)
Study Finds Marked Rise in Intensely Sexualized Images of Women, not Men
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- A study by University at Buffalo sociologists has found that the portrayal of women in the popular media over the last several decades has become increasingly sexualized, even "pornified." The same is not true of the portrayal of men.
After analyzing more than 1,000 images of men and women on Rolling Stone covers over the course of 43 years, the authors came to several conclusions. First, representations of both women and men have indeed become more sexualized over time; and, second, women continue to be more frequently sexualized than men. Their most striking finding, however, was the CHANGE in how intensely sexualized images of women -- but not men -- have become.
In the 1960s they found that 11 percent of men and 44 percent of women on the covers of Rolling Stone were sexualized. In the 2000s, 17 percent of men were sexualized (an increase of 55 percent from the 1960s), and 83 percent of women were sexualized (an increase of 89 percent). Among those images that were sexualized, 2 percent of men and 61 percent of women were hypersexualized. "In the 2000s," Hatton says, "there were 10 TIMES more HYPERSEXUALIZED IMAGES OF WOMEN than men, and 11 TIMES MORE NON-SEXUALIZED IMAGES OF MEN than of women."
More at link: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/12769
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:29 PM (418 replies)
My goodness, I never cease to be amazed at how some parents think their kids are God's answer to the planet. This applies mostly (I'd say almost exclusively) to the parents that have the brattiest kids on the planet.
Yesterday I had to spend some time with one of these kids because the mother felt that her child is so delightful, that surely all adults WANTED to have her child in their midst interrupting everything the adults said, and trying to break everything in the house and filthy it up. The adults wanted to make a run for it. That kid was loud, boisterous, not particularly bright, and (as if all the rest were not enough), NOT fascinating in the least. What the mom felt was grown up behavior on her child's part was merely a tremendous capacity for being obnoxious and unpleasant.
However, this mom was oohing and aahing about her kid (heck, who else was going to ooh and aah for this walking, talking obnoxia?), and trying to elicit our oohs and aahs, which were not forthcoming. I plastered what I refer to as, 'the look of the insane' smile on my face and pretended I was a robot. No oohs and aahs would come from me.
Why do parents (GENERALLY MOMS) inflict this on other adults? These moms behave as if they wanted to be your friend, but then by golly, they're HELL-BENT on you loving their bratty, spoiled kid. I think these moms don't really want to have friends. They just want to have an AUDIENCE for their bratty kids.
Since I'm on a rant about adults that do this, here's a tiny list of these adults that aggravate me. Let me know if any of you out there agree with me on this:
-Parents that include their kids in everything, adult conversations, bring kids to your dinner that you’ve made very clear is a grown ups dinner, etc.
-Parents that allow their kids to interrupt conversations between them and another adult
-Parents that allow the kids to run and answer the phone every time and waste your time talking trash, when the reason you called is to talk to the adult, not entertain the kid
-Parents that allow their kids to sit and listen to adult conversations
-Parents that bring their kids into the office and don’t keep them from bugging the heck out of you
-Parents that stop a whole huge line at the supermarket or anywhere at all because they want their child to talk to the employee taking orders or checking out
-Parents that bring kids to your house and let them make a frikkin’ mess everywhere and touch every single thing, even BREAK your things.
-Parents that insist on their kids performing for you, and are seeking for you to applaud like a trained seal no matter how horrific the performance was
-Parents that go on for endless hours about their kids’ accomplishments
-Parents that side with their kids against teachers and, well, just about everybody
-Parents that let their kids behave and run like animals through stores
-Parents that behave as if their kid were God's answer to the world, and insist you acknowledge that
WAKE UP, PARENTS! STOP TRYING TO GET ME TO ADORE YOUR KIDS!
Okay, now that I got that out of my system, all I want to add is that I think treating kids like some sort of perfect beings, or royalty, and putting them first 24/7 is the perfect recipe for creating narcissistic and perhaps sociopathic adults.
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Mon Dec 26, 2011, 11:41 AM (661 replies)
A study published in the journal Emotion finds that individuals in the upper-middle and upper classes are less able to detect and respond to the distress signals of others. Overall, the results indicate that socioeconomic status correlates with the level of empathy and compassion that people show in the face of emotionally charged situations.
“It’s not that the upper classes are coldhearted,” says lead author Jennifer Stellar, a social psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. “They may just not be as adept at recognizing the cues and signals of suffering because they haven’t had to deal with as many obstacles in their lives.”
(the rest of the article is at the link above)
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:15 AM (28 replies)
Liz Jones, former editor of Marie Claire, says this about the models the fashion industry uses, and why they use these, and how these force magazines to choose the same. More at the link below. (Even a J.K. Rowling quote about the cadaverous models).
"Unless they promote women as toothpicks, they will lose their chauffeur-driven jobs and front-row seats at fashion shows," she wrote. " want you to believe that you are not beautiful enough or young enough or thin enough, and they do that by draping CADAVEROUS 16-YEAR-OLDS across double-page spreads so you will feel so wretched that you will have to buy their products to make yourself feel better."
There is a very real problem with the abundance of skinny imagery that abounds in popular media. I challenge any person who denies such a thing: just look over a single days worth of comments on this very site (www.diet-blog.com). There are so many troubled girls - and so many of them mention the thin models they see. No I'm not talking about people diagnosed with Anorexia Nervosa - I'm talking about the thousands upon thousands of young women spend half their waking hours burning with self-hate - fueled in part by the abundant obsession with skinny models.
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Fri Dec 23, 2011, 06:55 PM (73 replies)
This is from the American Psychological Association. It is about the sexualization and objectification of girls (and women), and the damaging effects it has upon girls, teens, women, and even on men. It’s excellent. The link is at the end.
Here’s a rough summary of what it’s about:
1) Women are too often portrayed in a sexual manner in the media and society
2) Exposure to the sexual objectification of women in the media affects how GIRLS conceptualize femininity and sexuality
3) A narrow, unrealistic standard of physical beauty is emphasized
4) GIRLS are portrayed in a sexualized manner (for example, with captions such as ‘naughty and nice,’ wearing feather boas, adult women being presented as if they were little girls, etc).
5) Parents (perhaps unwittingly) convey to GIRLS the message that maintaining an attractive appearance is the most important goal
6) GIRLS then themselves encourage one another to meet unrealistic goals of beauty and thinness
7) Products and clothes for girls are designed to sexualize them like sexy celebrities
8) GIRLS learn to treat themselves as objects to be looked at and evaluated for their looks (self-objectification)
9) Studies show that self-objectification impairs mental activities of computation and logical reasoning
10) GIRLS experience anxiety about their appearance
11) GIRLS experience mental problems as a result of objectification and self-objectification, such as eating disorders and low self-esteem
12) Studies have shown a direct relationship between the narrow representations of female beauty (example, a thin ideal) and eating disorders
13) Sexual objectification and self-objectification have been linked to diminished sexual health and sexual assertiveness in teens and adult women
14) Exposure to narrow ideals of female sexual attractiveness can affect men and make it difficult for men to find an ‘adequate’ partner
15) Sexual objectification of women causes sexism, as it forces women to conform to younger and younger standards of an idealized girlified female sexual ‘beauty’
16) The portrayal of women as sexual objects is directly related to fewer GIRLS pursuing careers in math, science, engineering, etc.
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Thu Dec 22, 2011, 09:31 PM (40 replies)
Moral panic? No. We are resisting the pornification of women
Women's self-loathing is big business, and supports a global capitalist system that, ironically, depends heavily on the exploitation of women's labour in developing countries. Adding insult to injury, many of these underpaid women are spending a significant proportion of their wages on skin-whitening products that promise social mobility out of the sweatshops...
...An American Psychological Association study on girls' sexualisation found that it "has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs". Some of these effects include risky sexual behaviour, higher rates of eating disorders, depression and low self-esteem, and reduced academic performance. Of course, there are girls who resist, but there are real social penalties to be paid by those who do not conform to acceptable feminine appearance...
...To suggest feminists who oppose the pornification of society are stirring up a moral panic is to confuse a politically progressive movement with rightwing attempts to police sexual behaviour. We can, of course, identify just such a conservative strand in current debates in Britain: interventions of the coalition government include calls for girls to be given lessons in how to practise abstinence and attacks on abortion rights. But feminists who organise against pornification are not arguing that sexualised images of women cause moral decay; rather that they perpetuate myths of women's unconditional sexual availability and object status, and thus undermine women's rights to sexual autonomy, physical safety and economic and social equality. The harm done to women is not a moral harm but a political one, and any analysis must be grounded in a critique of the corporate control of our visual landscape...
(see the rest of the article at the link above)
This article explains how the sexual objectification of women is a real profit-maker for capitalists.
Posted by Sarah Ibarruri | Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:15 PM (43 replies)
Go to Page: 1