Thursday, September 30, 2010
"By Her Support, Does She Earn His Infidelity?"
- Pamela Paul, Sept. 24, 2010. The New York Times
In conjunction with...
"Men Earning Less Than Women, Cheat"- August 16,2010. The Times of India
In a study released in August 2010, Christin L. Munsch polled over a thousand men and women about their relationships, discovering what Pamela Paul of the New York Times called a "score... for sexual stereotypes"(Paul). In her study Munsch found that when women were the only source of income, husbands were five times more likely to cheat on their spouses. Analyzing this statistic Munsch explained that it probably stemmed from the intertwined ideas of masculinity and providing for the household (Paul). She also explained that this disturbing statistic held more weight in certain communities. Specifically, Latino men dependent on their wives' salaries were more likely to cheat because the "breadwinning status is "one of the defining features of Hispanic masculinity,"" explained Munsch (Times of India).
On the other side women who earned significantly less than their partners seemed to become more loyal. They have "more to loose", explained Munsch (Paul). Yet, Munsch also discovered that when men earned significantly more than women, cheating ensued at a higher rate than the average. Pamela Paul of the New York Times explained that "the safety zone" is where women make 75% of what men make.
While the percentage of male disloyalty was higher in couples where females dominated the economics, the percentage of overall cheaters was still small. In addition, of couples where the female had a higher income, more education and religious involvment decreased the chances of cheating. Yet, Munsch was adamant that women should take that raise when it comes, and press on as a loving, caring couple, for relationship satisfaction trumped all the statistics.
I found this study fascinating. Investigating Christin L. Munsch's profile on google I read that she initially became interested in this topic after working with women affected by domestic abuse. The connections are tricky. When men have more power, domestic abuse can occur and women are trapped. When women have more power, men (a small percentage of men) have a greater tendency to cheat. How can the cycle be broken? How can we transition to a world where it is acceptable for women to be the breadwinners and for men to stay home, without feeling inferior. As someone in class eloquently said, women are being pushed towards acting like men, yet there is still a negative stigma for men filling the roles of women. Women and men are biologically different, yet all people should probably be held to the same moral standards. Is there a way to transcend or shift cultural expectations as women shatter through the glass ceiling?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Malleable Bodies?
Works Cited:
Tuana, Nancy. The Less Nobel Sex. (Indiana University Press).
Picture sources:
A Cultural Paradigm Gap, Or, Why Did I Get Married?
In northeastern Thailand, many Thai women have begun marrying Western men who have settled in the area in order to get married. Though at first this tradition seems as distasteful as when Western men would take their wives home with them, both men and women seem somewhat satisfied with the way it works out. Thai women actually aspire to marry these men because of their wealth. In what seems to be a reversal of traditional roles, the men are often the ones seeking an emotional connection. One cited the fact that the Thai women were “a lot like women were in America 50 years ago” in that they have not yet asserted their rights and become “strong-headed and opinionated,” so that the marriage is not as “peaceful and relaxed,” according one of the men, an American who had been divorced twice prior to his marriage with his Thai wife.
When I first came across this article, my initial reaction was one of distaste toward the practice. However, while this particular man’s view is full of views of women that I find outdated and distasteful, I’m not entirely convinced that this phenomenon is all bad. After all, both parties are willing and benefit; the American found a wife whose views more closely corresponded with his own, and his wife achieved what she had always wanted – to marry a foreigner for the wealth and status she would acquire in the process.
On the other hand, the practice seems colonialistic on the men’s side and exploitative on the women’s. The women tend to be motivated by the desire for money, which probably doesn’t make the men looking for emotional connections feel good (again, the role reversal here is interesting). The men may not understand that, or if they do, they may not understand that they are also expected to support the wife’s family, as is traditional in Thai culture. If they are not prepared to do so, there can be trouble with the surrounding community.
Furthermore, the idea of allowing the stereotype of a subservient, domestic wife to continue to exist in these Western men’s minds is not one that rests easily in my mind. This American was actually looking for a wife who fit the traditional role, because most modern American women reject it to one extent or another. From the article, I can only conclude that he thinks the liberation of women in today’s society was a bad thing and wants to live in a place where that liberation hasn’t happened, which is a view I cannot stomach.
My question, then, is this: is what this American man did wrong? If both parties to the marriage want to be married, then at what point does it become unacceptable? On a larger scale, which culture’s value systems take precedence, Thai or Western?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/world/asia/25iht-thai.html
When I first came across this article, my initial reaction was one of distaste toward the practice. However, while this particular man’s view is full of views of women that I find outdated and distasteful, I’m not entirely convinced that this phenomenon is all bad. After all, both parties are willing and benefit; the American found a wife whose views more closely corresponded with his own, and his wife achieved what she had always wanted – to marry a foreigner for the wealth and status she would acquire in the process.
On the other hand, the practice seems colonialistic on the men’s side and exploitative on the women’s. The women tend to be motivated by the desire for money, which probably doesn’t make the men looking for emotional connections feel good (again, the role reversal here is interesting). The men may not understand that, or if they do, they may not understand that they are also expected to support the wife’s family, as is traditional in Thai culture. If they are not prepared to do so, there can be trouble with the surrounding community.
Furthermore, the idea of allowing the stereotype of a subservient, domestic wife to continue to exist in these Western men’s minds is not one that rests easily in my mind. This American was actually looking for a wife who fit the traditional role, because most modern American women reject it to one extent or another. From the article, I can only conclude that he thinks the liberation of women in today’s society was a bad thing and wants to live in a place where that liberation hasn’t happened, which is a view I cannot stomach.
My question, then, is this: is what this American man did wrong? If both parties to the marriage want to be married, then at what point does it become unacceptable? On a larger scale, which culture’s value systems take precedence, Thai or Western?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/world/asia/25iht-thai.html
Monday, September 27, 2010
"Feminist" Advertisements: Exploitation, or a Sign of Progress?
NYT article
Peggy Orenstein’s “The Way We Live Now” piece in this week’s New York Times Magazine explores what she calls the “empowerment mystique,” or using themes of girl power to sell products that have nothing to do with promoting equality. She mentions several recent commercials by companies selling products unrelated to gender or discrimination, such as Verizon and Target, which send a message of empowerment for girls and women. This kind of ad, she claims, manipulates people to associate the company with sincerity and hopefulness. It is also a reflection of a society in which women hold the majority of jobs, and earn more bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and doctorates than men.
Orenstein draws a distinction between the Verizon ad, which shows a series of young women speaking proudly and vaguely about the unbiased nature of air, and a similar Nike commercial from the 90’s which showed girls describing the benefits of playing sports. The latter had a specific purpose—encouraging schools and parents to promote girls’ sports teams and clubs. It also used real facts and statistics, and the company has ties with organizations that promote equality for girls in sports. Clearly, Orenstein is taking a strong stand against such advertisements when they don’t support a specific cause or aren’t in line with the company’s actions. I understand part of her concern—it is disappointing to find yourself being inspired and moved by a commercial only to find out that it’s actually just promoting a cell phone company. It feels a little bit like someone is taking advantage of your feminist pride.
But personally, when I see an ad on TV that celebrates female empowerment or individualism, it makes me feel good. Not just because there’s a girl on the screen telling me how us women are super cool, but because the existence of these ads indicates that feminism, however dulled down and commercialized, sells. In a world where every other ad features a half-naked woman selling clothing or a man making suggestive comments about hamburgers, I’m okay that people are trying to exploit my feminist instincts. Whether intentionally or not, these ads contribute to the rising acceptance of girl power in women and men. Shouldn’t we be happy that feminism, or whatever less controversial word we’re using these days, is “in”? Orenstein has a right to be frustrated at the advertising industry’s constant manipulation of human nature, but there’s nothing new about that. What is new is a society in which a company like Dove can advertise body lotion by telling us we’re all pretty enough without it.
Nike Ad (1995)
Verizon Ad (2010)
Other relevant ads
Sarah Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" Ad
Target "Free to Be You and Me" Ad
Dove Self-esteem Ad (2006)
Nike "Men vs. Women" Ad
Peggy Orenstein’s “The Way We Live Now” piece in this week’s New York Times Magazine explores what she calls the “empowerment mystique,” or using themes of girl power to sell products that have nothing to do with promoting equality. She mentions several recent commercials by companies selling products unrelated to gender or discrimination, such as Verizon and Target, which send a message of empowerment for girls and women. This kind of ad, she claims, manipulates people to associate the company with sincerity and hopefulness. It is also a reflection of a society in which women hold the majority of jobs, and earn more bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and doctorates than men.
Orenstein draws a distinction between the Verizon ad, which shows a series of young women speaking proudly and vaguely about the unbiased nature of air, and a similar Nike commercial from the 90’s which showed girls describing the benefits of playing sports. The latter had a specific purpose—encouraging schools and parents to promote girls’ sports teams and clubs. It also used real facts and statistics, and the company has ties with organizations that promote equality for girls in sports. Clearly, Orenstein is taking a strong stand against such advertisements when they don’t support a specific cause or aren’t in line with the company’s actions. I understand part of her concern—it is disappointing to find yourself being inspired and moved by a commercial only to find out that it’s actually just promoting a cell phone company. It feels a little bit like someone is taking advantage of your feminist pride.
But personally, when I see an ad on TV that celebrates female empowerment or individualism, it makes me feel good. Not just because there’s a girl on the screen telling me how us women are super cool, but because the existence of these ads indicates that feminism, however dulled down and commercialized, sells. In a world where every other ad features a half-naked woman selling clothing or a man making suggestive comments about hamburgers, I’m okay that people are trying to exploit my feminist instincts. Whether intentionally or not, these ads contribute to the rising acceptance of girl power in women and men. Shouldn’t we be happy that feminism, or whatever less controversial word we’re using these days, is “in”? Orenstein has a right to be frustrated at the advertising industry’s constant manipulation of human nature, but there’s nothing new about that. What is new is a society in which a company like Dove can advertise body lotion by telling us we’re all pretty enough without it.
Nike Ad (1995)
Verizon Ad (2010)
Other relevant ads
Sarah Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" Ad
Target "Free to Be You and Me" Ad
Dove Self-esteem Ad (2006)
Nike "Men vs. Women" Ad
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
"Mexican States Crack Down on Abortion" by Elisabeth Malkan- the New York Times
Hannah Kerman
Guanajauto is one of the seventeen Mexican states that created an amendment in 2008 banning abortion. This was a response to the legalization of abortion in Mexico City. In Roman Catholic ruled Guanajauto suspected cases of abortion are investigated thoroughly. Women's health advocates say that over the past 10 years, 166 cases of possible abortion have been investigated. Nine women were convicted and sent to jail.
Now, many Mexican women, having difficulties with their pregnancies are afraid to utilize healthcare.
Well, this article seems to touch explicitly on all three of those nifty things; Gender, Culture and Power.
Should the government have the power to constrict female reproductive rights? Is this a cultural issue that we cannot understand? Do women in Mexico support these laws as much as men do? What would happen if there were more women were involved in Mexican politics? Would the laws stay the same?
I believe women have the right to make decisions about their bodies and subsequently their lives. It is no one else's place to determine what another human being does with his or her body, and no politician can assume that a single solution will work for every individual. This is explicitly displayed in Malkan's article when she explains that earlier this year an 11 year old girl in one of the strict states was raped by her step-father. She didn't tell her mother until she was four months pregnant, and so with the new laws she cannot have an abortion.
But this article is about more than the question of making abortion illegal.
The article is also about what happens when a state abuses its powers. It seems that the Mexican states realize that making abortion illegal does not make it disappear. That is why Guanajauto and Veracruz have convicted and jailed women, some of whom have never even had abortions. They need to make an example, to scare those who would have attempted to have abortions. It's incredibly frightening; a modern government blatantly fudging documents, inciting fear, and randomly jailing its citizens for perceived crimes.
How can issues such issued be addressed? Should we write letters? Should we petition to have these women free and absolved? Is there anything that can be done when the resolution lies in a significant culture shift?
Extra Credit!
For ten points extra credit, submit a "Big Idea" to the "Loved Bodies, Big Ideas" contest. Write up a 500-word response to the following question:
What is one bold action that could make the world truly value the diversity of women and girls’ bodies?
Submission details are here. The three finalists will be flown to New York, all expenses paid, to deliver a ten-minute presentation of their ideas to a conference of experts.
In order to get the extra credit, cc me on your submission email. The deadline is December 1, but since this class ends sooner than that, you would need to submit it by November 19 in order to get the credit.
What is one bold action that could make the world truly value the diversity of women and girls’ bodies?
Submission details are here. The three finalists will be flown to New York, all expenses paid, to deliver a ten-minute presentation of their ideas to a conference of experts.
In order to get the extra credit, cc me on your submission email. The deadline is December 1, but since this class ends sooner than that, you would need to submit it by November 19 in order to get the credit.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
KFC's New Advertisements
KFC has started hiring college “hotties” to hand out KFC certificates while wearing outfits that say “double down” on their butts (putting a sandwich name that has no buns on their buns). KFC started this in Louisville Kentucky, and it worked so well that they are planning on expanding it to three more campuses soon. KFC’s marketing for primarily young men seems to be working and getting a lot of attention. The National Organization for Women is very unhappy that KFC is “using women’s bodies to sell fundamentally unhealthy products.” The chief marketing manager at KFC said that this was just another way to make the double down sandwich even more head turning.
I think that KFC should not have started this promotion. Sadly, this type of marketing works. KFC is raising even more awareness about their new sandwich and making their advertisements more personal. Each of the girls who work for KFC also gets $500 dollars. By starting this promotion, however, it has made a lot of women angry about how other women are being used as advertising tools, and have stopped going to KFC to boycott. In reality, many different companies and advertising agencies use gender roles to sell more of the products.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Women candidates vs. women's rights
This clip from the Rachel Maddow show helps us understand the role of the women like Aunt Lydia in Handmaid's Tale (or like the narrator's sister-in-law Jenny in "The Yellow Wallpaper"), who police other women's behavior. I'm eager to hear what you think, though. The wonderful Melissa Harris Lacewell's commentary starts at 8:30 minutes in.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Addicted To Beauty
We may often look in the mirror about 5 times before we leave for school to make sure our outfit is together, our hair look decent and that we have no glitches in our outfit. Not letting the way we look or dress dictate whether or not we are able to go on that day is good. However, in the celebrity's eye, they seem to be obsessed with beauty and looks could possibly be the only thing that is getting them by in the world. The media and stars often portray plastic surgery as something that can enhance your lifestyle and something that every older person should endure. If something is "drooping" then the media may say "you may want to find a way to get that fixed".
Having your body altered and changed to something you wanted it to be is not and easy and can also put a burden on your money. Many don't stop altering their body after one surgery because they begin to see an increasing number of things wrong with their figure or body structure. You then begin to develop Body Dysmorphic Disorder, which is when you become obsessed with perceived imperfections and no matter how many surgeries you undergo you always feel like you are ugly. Many teens and celebrities endure this disorder and feel as if the only way to correct these imperfections is through plastic surgery.
For example, starlet, Heidi Montag had recently had an breast augmentations but she was not happy with her breast size because Ryan Secrest said that her boobs didn't look that big and she internalized it and thought that they still were not big enough. Her boobs were already a G-cup but she decided that they were not big enough. She also has botox shoots into her lips very often to keep them "plump". Heidi admitted that she is obsessed with fitness but it is impossible for her to work out because he boobs are too big. Now she is looking for a surgeon that can reduce her breast size because she is unable to live an healthy lifestyle. However, since her breast implants she has had countless surgeries such as a brow life, nose job revision, chin reduction, neck liposuction, botox in her forehead, fat injections in her checks, and her ears pinned back. All these surgeries cost about 30,000 dollars.
One of the reasons why Heidi underwent surgery is because she was teased about her looks and she wants to become a pop star. In order for her to become a pop star she wanted to fit into the stereotype of a "perfect girl". She admitted that she wanted to gain sex appeal which she thought would come through getting numerous surgeries done because the music industry is such a cut-throat business. She hopes that these drastic change that she has made will get her the fame that she wants. However when is enough surgery enough?
The questions is when should you draw the line?
Plastic Surgery Remorse Linked to Deeper Issues
Experts Weigh in on Heidi Montag's Lament, Reasons for Multiple Plastic Surgeries
By KIM CAROLLO
ABC News Medical Unit
Sept. 1, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/plastic-surgery-remorse-rise/story?id=11525925
Plastic Surgery Remorse Linked to Deeper Issues
Experts Weigh in on Heidi Montag's Lament, Reasons for Multiple Plastic Surgeries
By KIM CAROLLO
ABC News Medical Unit
Sept. 1, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/plastic-surgery-remorse-rise/story?id=11525925
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Church of Body Modification
The article I chose discusses how body modification is viewed by various groups of people. According to the article 15% of Americans have at least one tattoo. These numbers have rose recently particularly in those between the ages of 25 and 29. The article examines females’ and males’ feelings towards their tattoos and found that 42% of women and 25% of men feel that their tattoos have made them sexier. The article does not explain this statistical difference, but I believe that the media gives tattoos on girls a particularly sexual connotation. In movies young women often display their ink in intimate places for the audience. I believe that this portrayal of tattoos gives women a sense of dangerous sexuality when they get their own tattoos.
The article then explores an emerging opinion about body modification as not just self-expression but as a spiritual journey. The Church of Body Modification is the church for a new type of “religion” that views body modification as an expression of faith. Theses manipulations such as fasting, binding, piercing, tattooing and cosmetic surgery are viewed as rituals that tie the soul, mind and body together. Body manipulation is seen by this church as a mechanism to test the bind between flesh and soul. I was a little shocked to discover that there is actually a religion that praises body manipulation. This idea seems contradictory to me since I would think that religion would deem the body as a temple not to be desecrated.
The article goes on to state that The Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Adolescence, Deviant Behavior and Pediatrics found tattooing and body piercing have been positively correlated with risk taking behavior such as eating disorders, depression, and substance abuse. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry deems body manipulation, including tattooing and piercing, as self-injury associated with social alienation. Clearly, medical professions view what others see as self-expression and faith as side effects of a disorder. This raises the question of what body modifications indicate. I believe that the meaning is very personal and cannot be generalized. In an age where the media tends to condone girls flaunting tramp stamps and where guys with tongue rings play the sexy bad boys what can we expect from society.
Heidi Dalzell, Philadelphia Eating Disorder Examiner, Examiner.com. http://www.examiner.com/eating-disorder-in-philadelphia/body-modification-tattoos-piercings-and-body-image
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
New United Nations Agency for Women and Gender Rights
The UN started a new agency called the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. This sector of the United Nations was created after four years of planning to make sure that women are being treated equally and supported. The agency will focus on 12 fields that include education, health, human rights, employment, and political participation. Ms Bachalet, the former Chilean President, will head this UN agency.
Ms. Bachalet understands how difficult her job is to help represent and support all the women, but she has great experience to work with from her presidency. She was the first Chilean President. Once in office, she filled the cabinet with 10 men and 10 women. She made alimony payments legal and kept the economy strong during the financial crisis. Ms. Bachalet set up her new UN agency well, with people representing many different areas in the world with many different backgrounds.
It is really great that the United Nations has realized the need for an agency that focuses on women. Gender issues are often forgotten, so it is nice to have a check up to make sure women are being represented. Ms. Bachalet commented that it will be difficult to make major changes quickly, as we have talked about, but it seems like the United Nations making a change for the better.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Are Men Truly Better Than Women?
Are men truly better than women? Well a study would show that at parking they are. Dr. Claudia Wolf conducted a study at the university where she works. Through Germany's Ruhr University, Dr. Wolf took five dozen men and women. She then placed them in identical cars, an Audi A6 sedan specifically, and told them to park the car. Some were told to parallel park, some to reverse, and some to park head on. They were then judged based on time and accuracy. The spaces in germany are a little bit smaller than the ones in the United States, but not very different. Dr. Wolf said that these results are not to be taken out of context. Her findings were only for a small sample size but they showed interesting results.
Her findings stated that in fact, men were better parkers than women. The women in the study took, on average, 20 seconds more to park their car, and were STILL less accurate than the men. Although the results can not be to generalized, these 60 women were intended to be representative of the gender.
Although I am not citing this article to state that men are better than women. I am bringing up because of the explanation that Dr. Wolf gave. She looked at the genetic difference between men and women. She said that men are better, for the most part, at tasks involving coordination and spacial awareness. This is similar to what Dr. Harris said. I personally just found it interesting that their are innate differences between genders and that these differences are out of our control to change (for the most part).
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell
The question of what it means to be “normal,” has always dictated societal rules and even laws and today is no different. The “don’t ask don’t tell policy” is an example of how people are trying to control society. “Don’t ask don’t tell” restricts the military from asking questions about service member’s sexual orientation provided that the service members refrain from homosexual acts and keep their sexual orientation secret. The policy was put in place in 1993 in response to the ban on homosexual’s ability to serve in the military. Since its implementation the law has received backlash and support from a divided country, however, recently a federal judge ruled that the policy was unconstitutional, providing a win for the Obama administration. Although this ruling is beneficial for the gay and lesbian community there are still battles to be won. The complex game of politics may prevent the Democrats from rallying the 60 votes needed to appeal The Defense of Marriage Act, which makes it legally more difficult for people of the same sex to marry. The reality is that few Democrats want to use all their political capital on one social policy, especially in states that are more socially conservative. Although there have been recent wins for the homosexual community they still have multiple obstacles in their path.
Policies generally reflect the societies that develop them. The “don’t ask don’t tell” policy and others like it reveals American perception of “normal.” Vast numbers of Americans believe that gays and lesbians do not have the basic legal rights as other American, like getting married or serving their country. Why is our society so obsessed with preserving this kind of normality and why do we see anything outside the perimeters of our views a threat? The human brain naturally categorizes and groups everything and feels comforted familiarity. This need for normality leads humans to create policies like “don’t ask don’t tell.” Humanity must strive to break these boundaries. Although this article proves that there is hope, society has a long way to go.
The Evolution of “Don’t Ask” and After Ruling on Gay Policy New Questions For Obama, The New York Times: National, 9/11/10.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Men and Their Guns
The New York Times article I read about had some interesting things to say and men and their guns. The article started out by examining NYC statistics as far as life expectancy goes. The average American woman can expect to like 81 years, and the average man 76. In NYC the average goes up for women but stays the same for men. In the long run, a year is a long time. The question then arose, Why do women live longer especially in NYC. The first thought was health related issues. After further examination both men and women have very similar rates of cancer related deaths, but men have a much higher risk of heart problems. This is just one of the 2 main reasons men in NYC, and also in general, are less likely to live past 65.
The other reason for men living a shorter live, especially in NYC, are their guns. As the article puts it, men settle their problems with guns. Men in NYC are 9 times more likely to die due to gun violence than women. Although overall the murder rate has gone in the last 20 years (2,200 to 500) men still make up a significant portion of the murders. Not only are only men more likely to be both victims and perpetrators, but race becomes a factor. The health department studied the demographics of gun related murders in NYC and had this to say about the probability that the perpetrator/victim was black, "The health department puts it at 3 times that of Latino men, 12 times that of white men and 70 that of men of Asian background."
So how do we fix it? Solution: we can't. We are not allowed to search people randomly on the streets and take away their weapons. Similarly we can't ban guns, simply because of our constitutional rights.
The article seems to have no clear solution in sight. Personally, neither do I. My only advice is to educate the public and hope. Although truthful, it seems like a shame that violence, life expectancy, and health problems all boils down to race and gender. In a perfect world, we would all be equally, but unfortunately, we aren't. My question is, why aren't we equal? Is it genetic, biological, or simply a fluke that men are more likely to die younger?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/nyregion/03nyc.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=gender&st=cse
The other reason for men living a shorter live, especially in NYC, are their guns. As the article puts it, men settle their problems with guns. Men in NYC are 9 times more likely to die due to gun violence than women. Although overall the murder rate has gone in the last 20 years (2,200 to 500) men still make up a significant portion of the murders. Not only are only men more likely to be both victims and perpetrators, but race becomes a factor. The health department studied the demographics of gun related murders in NYC and had this to say about the probability that the perpetrator/victim was black, "The health department puts it at 3 times that of Latino men, 12 times that of white men and 70 that of men of Asian background."
So how do we fix it? Solution: we can't. We are not allowed to search people randomly on the streets and take away their weapons. Similarly we can't ban guns, simply because of our constitutional rights.
The article seems to have no clear solution in sight. Personally, neither do I. My only advice is to educate the public and hope. Although truthful, it seems like a shame that violence, life expectancy, and health problems all boils down to race and gender. In a perfect world, we would all be equally, but unfortunately, we aren't. My question is, why aren't we equal? Is it genetic, biological, or simply a fluke that men are more likely to die younger?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/nyregion/03nyc.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=gender&st=cse
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Weight Index Doesn’t Tell the Whole Truth
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/health/31brod.html?_r=1&ref=health
B.M.I (Body Mass Index) is a measure of fatness in the body. Individuals have become so obsessed with their BMI's that they don't realize what the number actually measures. BMI's calculate both the fatty and lean tissue in the body. Dr. Carl Lavie explains that BMI's are primarily used for statistical purposes in large groups. For instance, the table can determine obesity in a large group, yet they are less accurate on a person-to-person basis. You can find a BMI chart almost everywhere. However, when people do not know how to interpret them accurately, they can be misleading. For example, athletes may fear they are overweight, when really, their body fat is healthy and necessary. On the flip side however, individuals often feel that a low BMI is healthy, when it could be the indication of eating disorder or disease. True body fatness is most accurately described by percentages of fat in relation to muscle. The best way to calculate fatness would be using measurements taken with a caliper in specified areas. This process shows the fat that is present underneath the skin.
B.M.I (Body Mass Index) is a measure of fatness in the body. Individuals have become so obsessed with their BMI's that they don't realize what the number actually measures. BMI's calculate both the fatty and lean tissue in the body. Dr. Carl Lavie explains that BMI's are primarily used for statistical purposes in large groups. For instance, the table can determine obesity in a large group, yet they are less accurate on a person-to-person basis. You can find a BMI chart almost everywhere. However, when people do not know how to interpret them accurately, they can be misleading. For example, athletes may fear they are overweight, when really, their body fat is healthy and necessary. On the flip side however, individuals often feel that a low BMI is healthy, when it could be the indication of eating disorder or disease. True body fatness is most accurately described by percentages of fat in relation to muscle. The best way to calculate fatness would be using measurements taken with a caliper in specified areas. This process shows the fat that is present underneath the skin.
This topic was interesting to me because so many people are paranoid about their weight for the wrong reasons. Girls, in particular, are constantly comparing themselves to each other. Images from the media have a particularly significant impact on girls. Females find any way they can to critique their bodies. Often, they have no basis to make judgments except for outward appearance. When individuals learn about the proper ways to calculate healthy body fat vs. unhealthy body fat, they will put more of an emphasis on exercise and weight training, than the mere change of a number. When people are constantly surrounded by BMI index charts in doctors’ offices and a number of other areas, it is nearly impossible not to read the numbers. However, it is interesting and upsetting that so many people are mislead by what the numbers actually mean. It makes me feel like there should be a disclaimer above the chart of the BMI index.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)