Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Friday, February 22, 2013
In my pursuit of healthier living I've come across many many ideas. Since I have a pretty well developed bullsh!t detector I have a fairly easy time at negotiating the miasma of theories about health and weight loss. Through all of my research I've come to the conclusion that trying to lose weight generally ends in failure while adapting to a healthier lifestyle is generally successful and often does result in a loss of weight.
Often though, a healthier lifestyle (and I define this as adopting a whole-foods diet filled with plants-based nutrition and little or no processed foods and moderate daily exercise) doesn't result in that much weight loss and people feel that the whole process was unsuccessful. That's where the concept of Health at Every Size (HAES) comes into play.
We are a very image-dependent culture. Our media has generally shaped societies view of what is considered attractive. We've become a society where healthy people are considered overweight and near emaciated people have become an image of health. We've come to rely on image as a measure of health rather than actual health as a measure of health. Even the medical community has been tainted to a degree.
People can be healthy or unhealthy at a range of sizes. We are individuals and health is a very individual process. I have been overweight (or even obese) much of my life. I was generally very healthy considering. I was very active comparably and I had better blood work than people half my size. At one point a doctor I was seeing told me that she had to re-run my blood work because she didn't believe that it was correct. My blood work was comparable to a professional athlete's. I weighed 230ish pounds and was categorized as obese by BMI statistics. She was the first doctor who ever told me the results of my tests said I was healthy and didn't go on to tell me that I needed to lose weight. One doctor had actually said he was "positive" I would have diabetes, based only on my size and wanted to give me a pill before testing me. After he read my stunningly healthy results (I had better labs than my very trim father) he still wanted me to diet.
I have always been moderately healthy. I say moderately because I didn't feel as healthy as my blood work had shown. Health is a complicated issue. It's not just how you feel, but also how you look (I think we can agree that someone with dull skin or such can look unhealthy) and there is also underlying health or unhealth you may not even know is happening. Health can be physical, emotional or both.
I truly believe in Health at Every Size, but with caveats. It's true you can be healthy at a range of sizes, but that doesn't mean that you will always be healthy and even if you are healthy now, it doesn't mean that you always will be or that you have a free pass to immerse yourself in unhealthy behaviors. I also believe that it really isn't healthy to carry significant weight on your frame, even if you exercise regularly, even if you're currently regarded as "healthy" medically. The human skeletal system is not evolutionarily prepared to carry such weight. Over time even a healthy person of generous size will start to have ill effects on their joints and in their skeletal structure. I'm not saying everyone is supposed to be skinny, I still think that there is a range of healthy size, but there is an upper limit of Health at Every Size. In effect, it's not Health at EVERY Size, it's Health at a damn bit larger range of sizes than the medical community and the media accepts, but there is a danger zone depending on your skeletal frame.
I've known far too many who use the Health at Every Size as an excuse to not change, demanding that everyone should just accept them for who they are. While that's true, it's not HAES, that is "Fat Acceptance," and it's abusing the HAES movement. Most of my experience with the Fat Acceptance movement doesn't focus on health at all. I'm also not suggesting that people of size shouldn't be accepted in society. If you eat a healthy diet and do regular movement/exercise and your medical tests show that you are healthy, fine, you can claim HAES. If you're eating junk food and the only movement you do with excitement is from couch to fridge and you're relying on pills to make you healthy, I don't care what you weigh or what you look like, you're just not allowed to hide behind HAES, in my opinion.
I live in a community where there is a lot of shaming if you want to lose weight, no matter the reason. Many of the people I know are Goddess sized and when I mention that I'm trying to lose some weight and return to my body's happy size/weight, I get "but you're perfect and beautiful the way you are" or "skinny women aren't attractive" or "bone is for the dog, meat is for the man" and other similar jests trying to dissuade me from pursuing what I consider a healthier lifestyle.
So the breakdown I guess is that not all thin people are healthy, not all larger people are unhealthy. There is a wider range of size at which people can be healthy and society and the medical community need to get a clue. While there are larger people who are healthy there are far more who aren't (but that doesn't mean a doctor should automatically think heavier = unhealthy) but even healthy larger people run a risk of musculo-skeletal issues in the future no matter how healthy or active they are because the human body does have a load limit, there is an upper cap that depends on your individual skeletal system and over time the circulatory system may suffer from needing to pump to a larger frame. Everyone should strive to be healthier, and some should strive to be healthier and thinner, though not everyone needs to weigh 115 pounds. Also, I guarantee if you switch to a whole-foods, 70%+ plant-based (and preferably organic) diet, tossing out all those processed products and non-food items (remember, food comes from farms, products come from factories) you will feel, look and be healthier. There's a reason the Standard American Diet abbreviates to "SAD."
Often though, a healthier lifestyle (and I define this as adopting a whole-foods diet filled with plants-based nutrition and little or no processed foods and moderate daily exercise) doesn't result in that much weight loss and people feel that the whole process was unsuccessful. That's where the concept of Health at Every Size (HAES) comes into play.
We are a very image-dependent culture. Our media has generally shaped societies view of what is considered attractive. We've become a society where healthy people are considered overweight and near emaciated people have become an image of health. We've come to rely on image as a measure of health rather than actual health as a measure of health. Even the medical community has been tainted to a degree.
People can be healthy or unhealthy at a range of sizes. We are individuals and health is a very individual process. I have been overweight (or even obese) much of my life. I was generally very healthy considering. I was very active comparably and I had better blood work than people half my size. At one point a doctor I was seeing told me that she had to re-run my blood work because she didn't believe that it was correct. My blood work was comparable to a professional athlete's. I weighed 230ish pounds and was categorized as obese by BMI statistics. She was the first doctor who ever told me the results of my tests said I was healthy and didn't go on to tell me that I needed to lose weight. One doctor had actually said he was "positive" I would have diabetes, based only on my size and wanted to give me a pill before testing me. After he read my stunningly healthy results (I had better labs than my very trim father) he still wanted me to diet.
I have always been moderately healthy. I say moderately because I didn't feel as healthy as my blood work had shown. Health is a complicated issue. It's not just how you feel, but also how you look (I think we can agree that someone with dull skin or such can look unhealthy) and there is also underlying health or unhealth you may not even know is happening. Health can be physical, emotional or both.
I truly believe in Health at Every Size, but with caveats. It's true you can be healthy at a range of sizes, but that doesn't mean that you will always be healthy and even if you are healthy now, it doesn't mean that you always will be or that you have a free pass to immerse yourself in unhealthy behaviors. I also believe that it really isn't healthy to carry significant weight on your frame, even if you exercise regularly, even if you're currently regarded as "healthy" medically. The human skeletal system is not evolutionarily prepared to carry such weight. Over time even a healthy person of generous size will start to have ill effects on their joints and in their skeletal structure. I'm not saying everyone is supposed to be skinny, I still think that there is a range of healthy size, but there is an upper limit of Health at Every Size. In effect, it's not Health at EVERY Size, it's Health at a damn bit larger range of sizes than the medical community and the media accepts, but there is a danger zone depending on your skeletal frame.
I've known far too many who use the Health at Every Size as an excuse to not change, demanding that everyone should just accept them for who they are. While that's true, it's not HAES, that is "Fat Acceptance," and it's abusing the HAES movement. Most of my experience with the Fat Acceptance movement doesn't focus on health at all. I'm also not suggesting that people of size shouldn't be accepted in society. If you eat a healthy diet and do regular movement/exercise and your medical tests show that you are healthy, fine, you can claim HAES. If you're eating junk food and the only movement you do with excitement is from couch to fridge and you're relying on pills to make you healthy, I don't care what you weigh or what you look like, you're just not allowed to hide behind HAES, in my opinion.
I live in a community where there is a lot of shaming if you want to lose weight, no matter the reason. Many of the people I know are Goddess sized and when I mention that I'm trying to lose some weight and return to my body's happy size/weight, I get "but you're perfect and beautiful the way you are" or "skinny women aren't attractive" or "bone is for the dog, meat is for the man" and other similar jests trying to dissuade me from pursuing what I consider a healthier lifestyle.
So the breakdown I guess is that not all thin people are healthy, not all larger people are unhealthy. There is a wider range of size at which people can be healthy and society and the medical community need to get a clue. While there are larger people who are healthy there are far more who aren't (but that doesn't mean a doctor should automatically think heavier = unhealthy) but even healthy larger people run a risk of musculo-skeletal issues in the future no matter how healthy or active they are because the human body does have a load limit, there is an upper cap that depends on your individual skeletal system and over time the circulatory system may suffer from needing to pump to a larger frame. Everyone should strive to be healthier, and some should strive to be healthier and thinner, though not everyone needs to weigh 115 pounds. Also, I guarantee if you switch to a whole-foods, 70%+ plant-based (and preferably organic) diet, tossing out all those processed products and non-food items (remember, food comes from farms, products come from factories) you will feel, look and be healthier. There's a reason the Standard American Diet abbreviates to "SAD."
Monday, February 18, 2013
Question of The Week: Does the Internet really make us more informed?
I've often found myself asking "in an an age with so much information available, how is it that so many continue to be so ignorant of basic facts?" This is a greater issue than simple access to information. Even with adequate access, people choose to remain ignorant or simply do not know the facts on basic issues.
In this day of information it is far easier to suffer from information overload than to be well-informed. There is still the bias that if it is accessible on the Internet that it is true when in fact most of the easily accessible information isn't accurate or isn't information. It's often opinion, rhetoric, propaganda or advertisement. Unfortunately, because our educational system has suffered such deep cuts in quality, many are unable to discern the difference between the truth and other forms of media.
The inability to think critically and analyze to discern the difference between true information and the rest is crippling us in the information age. The Internet certainly gives us access to information but like any resource it is up to the user to wade through the mire to the verified truth.
The Internet age also makes it all too easy for people to trust one source as truth without confirmation from a separate independent source. Even more challenging is finding sources that don't refer back to each other. The Internet is a very incestuous source of information.
So does the Internet make us more informed? Only in the hands of an intelligent and adept user. In the hands of the uneducated, voluntarily ignorant, or lazy the Internet only serves to perpetuate whatever the user chooses to believe rather than what is actually and demonstrably true.
Once again I find myself on a soapbox calling for more effective education and comprehensive education reform. It is only when we give people the power to access and analyze information that it is truly useful.
I've often found myself asking "in an an age with so much information available, how is it that so many continue to be so ignorant of basic facts?" This is a greater issue than simple access to information. Even with adequate access, people choose to remain ignorant or simply do not know the facts on basic issues.
In this day of information it is far easier to suffer from information overload than to be well-informed. There is still the bias that if it is accessible on the Internet that it is true when in fact most of the easily accessible information isn't accurate or isn't information. It's often opinion, rhetoric, propaganda or advertisement. Unfortunately, because our educational system has suffered such deep cuts in quality, many are unable to discern the difference between the truth and other forms of media.
The inability to think critically and analyze to discern the difference between true information and the rest is crippling us in the information age. The Internet certainly gives us access to information but like any resource it is up to the user to wade through the mire to the verified truth.
The Internet age also makes it all too easy for people to trust one source as truth without confirmation from a separate independent source. Even more challenging is finding sources that don't refer back to each other. The Internet is a very incestuous source of information.
So does the Internet make us more informed? Only in the hands of an intelligent and adept user. In the hands of the uneducated, voluntarily ignorant, or lazy the Internet only serves to perpetuate whatever the user chooses to believe rather than what is actually and demonstrably true.
Once again I find myself on a soapbox calling for more effective education and comprehensive education reform. It is only when we give people the power to access and analyze information that it is truly useful.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
I love hearing President Obama speak. He's an amazing orator and the State of The Union address is usually one of his shining moments. I have a love-hate relationship watching the address because while my heart is swelled with pride and patriotism I always feel like I've been wined and dined and never get my call for a second date. It's not President Obama's fault. The SoTUA is supposed to talk big ideas and give you hope. Then the realization sinks in of all the little things I want to see changed were left unaddressed and that all the wonderful ideas that were posited will probably never come to light because we have an overwhelmingly obstructionist Congress.
I was very pleased that so much of the address focused on education. It's a good start and I can only hope that these efforts will snowball into greater efforts that bring our educational system out of the morass that it has been in for more than a generation.
As I said, I'm always disappointed about things left unaddressed, so I will list them here. This list will serve as a political bucket list for me. I will use this list to call my Congressmen, the President and chairs of various committees. Every day, yes every day, I plan to call about a new issue. Squeaky wheels get the grease. As I get my research done (whom to call, for each issue) I'll post it here in case anyone wants to join me in my endeavor. I'm listing things that weren't referenced in the SoTUA last night.
Here's a list, in no particular order, and very roughly written out:
1. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall act (I loved you Bubba, but repealing this was a shitty move.)
2. Overturn Citizens United
3. Repeal DOMA & support marriage equality
4. Ask for Federal support for the Edible Schoolyard Project
5. Ask for a Federal bill preventing the advertising to children under the age of 12 (similar to the EU)
6. Reinstate OSHA's power to investigate workplace injuries without prior notification to companies and reinstate the workplace injury form to report musculoskeletal injuries/disorders.
7. Ask for a Federal bill giving the USDA authority to test for dangerous pathogens, to set enforceable limits on those pathogens and to demand (rather than request) the recall of contaminated food. (Thank you to the book Fast Food Nation for this suggestion.)
8. Ask for a federal bill requiring the labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs)
9. Allow the EPA to have the power to sanction, fine and shut down violators of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc. Basically, give the EPA some teeth.
10. Ask for the FDA to do their own testing of pharmaceuticals (and natural remedies) to determine the safety of drugs before FDA approval rather than allowing Big Pharma to conduct their own tests and tell the FDA drugs are safe.
11. Overhaul the federal small business loan system to support independent businesses, rather than funding franchisees of the fast food industry that have a high default rate.
12. Ask for a Federal bill for a livable minimum wage for restaurant workers (including fast food) or include/better support restaurant workers in the Federal minimum wage hike proposed last night. Also: add paid leave for all workers.
13. Ask for a Federal bill providing 40 weeks of paid parental leave, bringing us into the realm of other industrialized nations (currently our parental leave policies mimic those of Papua New Guinea and Swaziland rather than those of Britain, France or Sweden. Even Afghanistan gives more maternity leave than the US.)
14. Ask for a Federal bill subsidizing 100% higher education similar to other industrialized nations. I really wish I could remember where I read about this. In other nations they subsidize college (4 year degree) 100% and possibly a portion of medical degrees. It ends up costing each person about $9000.00 on their taxes over their adult lifetime to do this. Most college graduates in the US graduate with high student debt. I, myself have a debt that currently (not counting my impending graduate school costs) will cost me more than three times what I originally borrowed. I'd much rather pay $9000.00 in taxes than have to pay $72,000 over the rest of my lifetime.
There are so many other things I'd like to change, and these ideas need to be polished up just a bit and researched before I can start making my calls (after all, I want to present coherent and cogent arguments not inane ramblings-that's what blogs are for, right?) I want the Federal Government to regulate big Agribusiness and support independent and organic farmers. I want serious educational funding and reform. I want higher taxes for millionaires and more money spent on infrastructure. I want the government to stop subsidizing big business. I want socialized health care. I want these and a lot more. I'd be a terrible Buddhist.
I was very pleased that so much of the address focused on education. It's a good start and I can only hope that these efforts will snowball into greater efforts that bring our educational system out of the morass that it has been in for more than a generation.
As I said, I'm always disappointed about things left unaddressed, so I will list them here. This list will serve as a political bucket list for me. I will use this list to call my Congressmen, the President and chairs of various committees. Every day, yes every day, I plan to call about a new issue. Squeaky wheels get the grease. As I get my research done (whom to call, for each issue) I'll post it here in case anyone wants to join me in my endeavor. I'm listing things that weren't referenced in the SoTUA last night.
Here's a list, in no particular order, and very roughly written out:
1. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall act (I loved you Bubba, but repealing this was a shitty move.)
2. Overturn Citizens United
3. Repeal DOMA & support marriage equality
4. Ask for Federal support for the Edible Schoolyard Project
5. Ask for a Federal bill preventing the advertising to children under the age of 12 (similar to the EU)
6. Reinstate OSHA's power to investigate workplace injuries without prior notification to companies and reinstate the workplace injury form to report musculoskeletal injuries/disorders.
7. Ask for a Federal bill giving the USDA authority to test for dangerous pathogens, to set enforceable limits on those pathogens and to demand (rather than request) the recall of contaminated food. (Thank you to the book Fast Food Nation for this suggestion.)
8. Ask for a federal bill requiring the labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs)
9. Allow the EPA to have the power to sanction, fine and shut down violators of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc. Basically, give the EPA some teeth.
10. Ask for the FDA to do their own testing of pharmaceuticals (and natural remedies) to determine the safety of drugs before FDA approval rather than allowing Big Pharma to conduct their own tests and tell the FDA drugs are safe.
11. Overhaul the federal small business loan system to support independent businesses, rather than funding franchisees of the fast food industry that have a high default rate.
12. Ask for a Federal bill for a livable minimum wage for restaurant workers (including fast food) or include/better support restaurant workers in the Federal minimum wage hike proposed last night. Also: add paid leave for all workers.
13. Ask for a Federal bill providing 40 weeks of paid parental leave, bringing us into the realm of other industrialized nations (currently our parental leave policies mimic those of Papua New Guinea and Swaziland rather than those of Britain, France or Sweden. Even Afghanistan gives more maternity leave than the US.)
14. Ask for a Federal bill subsidizing 100% higher education similar to other industrialized nations. I really wish I could remember where I read about this. In other nations they subsidize college (4 year degree) 100% and possibly a portion of medical degrees. It ends up costing each person about $9000.00 on their taxes over their adult lifetime to do this. Most college graduates in the US graduate with high student debt. I, myself have a debt that currently (not counting my impending graduate school costs) will cost me more than three times what I originally borrowed. I'd much rather pay $9000.00 in taxes than have to pay $72,000 over the rest of my lifetime.
There are so many other things I'd like to change, and these ideas need to be polished up just a bit and researched before I can start making my calls (after all, I want to present coherent and cogent arguments not inane ramblings-that's what blogs are for, right?) I want the Federal Government to regulate big Agribusiness and support independent and organic farmers. I want serious educational funding and reform. I want higher taxes for millionaires and more money spent on infrastructure. I want the government to stop subsidizing big business. I want socialized health care. I want these and a lot more. I'd be a terrible Buddhist.
Monday, February 11, 2013
At the risk of marginalizing my husband and male friends, I ask the Question of The Week: Are Men Becoming Obsolete? I'm not suggesting that males as a gender aren't nice to have around (well, some males) or that they are are becoming completely useless (although I've known a few who were close) I'm suggesting that in modern society males are becoming less needed. Not that they aren't wanted(God knows I prefer a group of guy friends over women most days) but they aren't needed.
Women are capable of doing everything men are capable of doing. We can start and run successful businesses. We can design and build structures and lift heavy objects. We can be doctors and heal the sick. We can govern and set law. We can fight in combat. We can raise a family on our own without a man's support emotionally or financially. We always have been able to do these things, even if we weren't allowed to through social norms or actual law. Women can do everything a man can do and more. We can have children.
In fact, conception is really the only place where a woman needs a man. After that, we are completely capable of doing everything else on our own. I've known a great many women who were abandoned after conception to have and raise a child on their own. This is not about want, it's about raw need. And it's this realization that men are in fact less necessary to the survival of the species that causes the oppressive behavior we see.
When women began to realize that they controlled their reproductive freedom (through the invention of reliable birth control) we gained access to our trump card as a gender. Now, in addition to being physically, intellectually, and emotionally capable of everything men can do, we could now control when and under what conditions we would have children. It's a power not to be taken lightly and a power that we are still fighting to keep.
"The abortion debate" as the media likes to call it is not about abortion or access to affordable birth control. At its core, the debate is about so much more: reproductive freedom, and ultimately, women's freedom. When women finally win the freedom over their bodies and control reproduction, it will become obvious how unequal the sexes really are. Is this why the fight over reproductive freedom continues? Could it be that paternalistic lawmakers consciously realize that if they lose this fight, women will realize how much power we truly hold? Are they afraid that women will realize that they don't need men to survive and they as a gender will become marginalized?
I'm of course speaking in extremes. Women as a whole are not going to decide one day to start Amazonian colonies where they emerge only to conceive children and then retreat. Well, some women might, but in general women tend to enjoy the company of men. Still, it's important to talk about reproductive freedom. Personally, I no longer consider myself "pro-choice," I consider myself a proponent of reproductive freedom.
When we as a society finally allow women to have control over their reproductive freedom our society will transcend from one where there is a continuous tug of war to one of true respect and admiration. I believe in part that this struggle for reproductive freedom permeates so much of our society and relationships. This is the last area where men are still controlling women and it sends a message that women need men in more ways than they actually do. For much of our time on Earth men have controlled women in some way or another. We're no longer barred from education or considered property, but for some reason a rather large part of the population feels that we are still incapable of making decisions about our bodies.
I believe when we as a gender finally achieve our reproductive freedom it will ripple out and change the relationships we have. Not immediately, but over time. I believe that reproductive freedom is the last hurdle we have as a society to prove that we are an evolved species. I'd like to think that this ripple will make women stronger and it will eventually affect our relationships in a positive manner. Women will finally see how capable they are when there are no more laws telling them what they can't do. I've known far too many women who are in bad or abusive relationships because they feel they "need" a man. And is it any wonder? For so long women have "needed" men because we were barred from doing so much. Could this false sense of need be abolished if we finally gain reproductive freedom? Could the nature of our relationships become more healthy and evolved because we now move past a state of need and into a state of choice?
Note: This is not to suggest that all men seek to prevent women from achieving reproductive freedom or seek to control women. Likewise, it does not suggest that all women feel that they need a male to complete them or to achieve equality. It is simply a discussion, a hypothesis of a societal phenomenon. Also, it is not a commentary on modern feminism, which I believe is important and necessary to fight for the equality of all people, regardless of their biological gender and the society in which they live.
Women are capable of doing everything men are capable of doing. We can start and run successful businesses. We can design and build structures and lift heavy objects. We can be doctors and heal the sick. We can govern and set law. We can fight in combat. We can raise a family on our own without a man's support emotionally or financially. We always have been able to do these things, even if we weren't allowed to through social norms or actual law. Women can do everything a man can do and more. We can have children.
In fact, conception is really the only place where a woman needs a man. After that, we are completely capable of doing everything else on our own. I've known a great many women who were abandoned after conception to have and raise a child on their own. This is not about want, it's about raw need. And it's this realization that men are in fact less necessary to the survival of the species that causes the oppressive behavior we see.
When women began to realize that they controlled their reproductive freedom (through the invention of reliable birth control) we gained access to our trump card as a gender. Now, in addition to being physically, intellectually, and emotionally capable of everything men can do, we could now control when and under what conditions we would have children. It's a power not to be taken lightly and a power that we are still fighting to keep.
"The abortion debate" as the media likes to call it is not about abortion or access to affordable birth control. At its core, the debate is about so much more: reproductive freedom, and ultimately, women's freedom. When women finally win the freedom over their bodies and control reproduction, it will become obvious how unequal the sexes really are. Is this why the fight over reproductive freedom continues? Could it be that paternalistic lawmakers consciously realize that if they lose this fight, women will realize how much power we truly hold? Are they afraid that women will realize that they don't need men to survive and they as a gender will become marginalized?
I'm of course speaking in extremes. Women as a whole are not going to decide one day to start Amazonian colonies where they emerge only to conceive children and then retreat. Well, some women might, but in general women tend to enjoy the company of men. Still, it's important to talk about reproductive freedom. Personally, I no longer consider myself "pro-choice," I consider myself a proponent of reproductive freedom.
When we as a society finally allow women to have control over their reproductive freedom our society will transcend from one where there is a continuous tug of war to one of true respect and admiration. I believe in part that this struggle for reproductive freedom permeates so much of our society and relationships. This is the last area where men are still controlling women and it sends a message that women need men in more ways than they actually do. For much of our time on Earth men have controlled women in some way or another. We're no longer barred from education or considered property, but for some reason a rather large part of the population feels that we are still incapable of making decisions about our bodies.
I believe when we as a gender finally achieve our reproductive freedom it will ripple out and change the relationships we have. Not immediately, but over time. I believe that reproductive freedom is the last hurdle we have as a society to prove that we are an evolved species. I'd like to think that this ripple will make women stronger and it will eventually affect our relationships in a positive manner. Women will finally see how capable they are when there are no more laws telling them what they can't do. I've known far too many women who are in bad or abusive relationships because they feel they "need" a man. And is it any wonder? For so long women have "needed" men because we were barred from doing so much. Could this false sense of need be abolished if we finally gain reproductive freedom? Could the nature of our relationships become more healthy and evolved because we now move past a state of need and into a state of choice?
Note: This is not to suggest that all men seek to prevent women from achieving reproductive freedom or seek to control women. Likewise, it does not suggest that all women feel that they need a male to complete them or to achieve equality. It is simply a discussion, a hypothesis of a societal phenomenon. Also, it is not a commentary on modern feminism, which I believe is important and necessary to fight for the equality of all people, regardless of their biological gender and the society in which they live.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
There are times when I do things and then I think "everyone should do this at least once." It's the standard egoism of liking something and wanting to share and get others to do it too.
I decided to make a list of things I've done, or still do, that I think everyone should try at least once. Because I'm a foodie, a lot of the things are related to food or health, but trust me, they are worth it.
1. Watch the sunrise intentionally. Just because it's a beautiful reminder of our place in the world and how lucky we are to be alive.
2. Make your own butter. This is a dreadfully easy thing to do and it's sciency, I first saw it on Bill Nye The Science Guy. For die-hards you just pour a carton of heavy cream (organic & grass-fed is best) and a little bit of sea salt into a large wide-mouth canning jar. Seal the jar and shake. And shake. And shake. It took me about 25-30 minutes to go from heavy cream, to whipped cream to butter. You know it's butter when it happens. All the fat solids adhere to each other and clumps and separates from the liquid. Or you can just beat the cream in a mixer until it becomes butter, but the jar is far more fun and a great workout. And the taste is so wonderful.
3. Plant a vegetable garden. It can be big, it can be small, but plant something and eat it when it grows. You can grow a single tomato plant. They will be the best tomatoes you've ever eaten. For great ideas, one of my favorite books is Edible Landscaping by Rosalind Creasy.
4. Drink your greens. For one week or one month, add a daily green smoothie or green juice to your day. I've had both and it never ceases to amaze me how energizing a green juice can be. I feel more awake and energized after one green juice than I do after multiple cups of coffee. Green Smoothies are a great way to regulate your digestive system.
My favorite green smoothie is from FoodBabe:
I decided to make a list of things I've done, or still do, that I think everyone should try at least once. Because I'm a foodie, a lot of the things are related to food or health, but trust me, they are worth it.
1. Watch the sunrise intentionally. Just because it's a beautiful reminder of our place in the world and how lucky we are to be alive.
2. Make your own butter. This is a dreadfully easy thing to do and it's sciency, I first saw it on Bill Nye The Science Guy. For die-hards you just pour a carton of heavy cream (organic & grass-fed is best) and a little bit of sea salt into a large wide-mouth canning jar. Seal the jar and shake. And shake. And shake. It took me about 25-30 minutes to go from heavy cream, to whipped cream to butter. You know it's butter when it happens. All the fat solids adhere to each other and clumps and separates from the liquid. Or you can just beat the cream in a mixer until it becomes butter, but the jar is far more fun and a great workout. And the taste is so wonderful.
3. Plant a vegetable garden. It can be big, it can be small, but plant something and eat it when it grows. You can grow a single tomato plant. They will be the best tomatoes you've ever eaten. For great ideas, one of my favorite books is Edible Landscaping by Rosalind Creasy.
4. Drink your greens. For one week or one month, add a daily green smoothie or green juice to your day. I've had both and it never ceases to amaze me how energizing a green juice can be. I feel more awake and energized after one green juice than I do after multiple cups of coffee. Green Smoothies are a great way to regulate your digestive system.
My favorite green juice recipe is from Hungry for Change:
- 2-3 stalks of Celery (leaves removed)
- 1 small Cucumber (or 1/2 of a larger one)
- 2 large Kale leaves
- 1 handful of Parsley
- 1 Lemon
- 1 Apple or Pear
Hari Shake:
2 cups kale removed from stem
- 2 large stalks of celery chopped
- 1/2 cucumber chopped
- 1/3 grapefruit
- 1 cup frozen pineapple
- 6 ounces of water
***Please buy all organic ingredients if possible***
Directions
- Wash all vegetables thoroughly and place into a large bowl
- Add 6 ounces of water into a blender with celery, cucumber, and grapefruit
- Blend for 30 secs until just incorporated
- Add all other ingredients and keep blending for another 30 secs – 1min
Makes 1 serving – Sip slowly and drink with intention immediately after or store up to two days.
5. Play with a child. Seriously. You may hate children. I wasn't fond of them for a long time and I still struggle liking ones that aren't my own but playing with a child, really playing with them, letting them direct the play and seeing the activities through their eyes gives you a perspective you've lost and need to regain, even if for a moment.
**Note: Don't just go to a park and play with strange children, this could lead to complications. Play with a relative or friend's child.
**Note: Don't just go to a park and play with strange children, this could lead to complications. Play with a relative or friend's child.
6. Go meatless for a month. And don't become a bread, pasta and cheese vegetarian. Cook meals from fresh veggies and really taste them. I guarantee that after even a week all those processed products with just taste like mush to you.
7. Try grass-fed, pasture raised organic meat. At least once, preferably more than once. Seriously, if you eat meat nothing beats the taste and texture of pasture-raised all grass-fed meat. Commercial meat is grain-fed which is against nature. I won't get into all the details here. Read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan for a good primer. Pasture-raised, organic grass-fed meat is what nature intended omnivores to eat. It's good for us (in moderation, the average American diet is heavily meat based and unhealthy for us) and good for the planet. Like a fine wine or a diamond, this is meat aged to be the best it can be and it will be worth the extra money. My family no longer eats conventional meat. We eat grass-fed meat and wild caught fish and only about once a week. This keeps the grocery bill down and helps us to appreciate the quality for which we pay. Look on Eat Wild for resources.
7. Try grass-fed, pasture raised organic meat. At least once, preferably more than once. Seriously, if you eat meat nothing beats the taste and texture of pasture-raised all grass-fed meat. Commercial meat is grain-fed which is against nature. I won't get into all the details here. Read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan for a good primer. Pasture-raised, organic grass-fed meat is what nature intended omnivores to eat. It's good for us (in moderation, the average American diet is heavily meat based and unhealthy for us) and good for the planet. Like a fine wine or a diamond, this is meat aged to be the best it can be and it will be worth the extra money. My family no longer eats conventional meat. We eat grass-fed meat and wild caught fish and only about once a week. This keeps the grocery bill down and helps us to appreciate the quality for which we pay. Look on Eat Wild for resources.
8. Tell yourself how great you are. Every day, at least once a day, say something or write down one thing that is great about you. The best compliments come from within. Do this for a week or longer. If you keep talking to yourself positively, you'll realize how true all this greatness is!
9. Stop negative talk for one day. Try to stop talking negatively-about yourself, about others, about the weather, whatever. Keep it positive for at least one day, even in the face of adversity. Even better-do it for a week, or a lifetime! Before you say it, or let that thought permeate your brain THINK-Is it TRUE, Is it HELPFUL, Is it INSPIRING (or INTELLIGENT) Is it NECESSARY and Is it KIND? If not, don't say it.
10. Take a Risk. Even a small one. What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail? Is there something you always wanted to do or to try but you let fear get in the way? DO IT! Take a calculated risk. I put off going to graduate school because I was too frightened to give up the security of full-time work. Even after I was more secure (through marriage) I was too afraid to do it, for fear it would be selfish to ask my husband to support me while I went back to school. The resentment and the sadness of giving up on my dream started to make everything in my life seem grey and pointless. Don't let this happen to you. I'm not saying quit your job and move to an ashram (unless it's what you really want to do and you aren't screwing people over to do it, for example, you need to take your family into account and such) but do things that overcome your fears. If you're ultimate dream is something big make a list of the steps and incrementally reach your dream. The ultimate takeaway is to conquer your fear to improve your life.
Friday, February 8, 2013
I've been called names and been threatened for my view on the State of the Union. I don't believe that America is the greatest nation in the world. I'm willing to say that. Out loud. In Public. People who believe America is the greatest nation are either exceedingly wealthy, incredibly stupid/clueless, or immigrants from somewhere much worse off and generally not in the same league as the USA (i.e. "third-world" nations.)
I ask the question "who is more patriotic:" The person waving an American flag made in China who is completely oblivious to the failings of his or her country, or the person who actively seeks American-made products, shops local for as many things as possible and knows that there is room for improvement and wants the US to improve those areas that are lacking?
I want the US to be the greatest nation, but it just isn't the case and unless we, as a nation, remove the wool from our collective eyes and ears and move off the couch and into the street, we will continue to be behind most of the world in, well, every area.
"Corporations are people, my friend." This concept/statement is part of the reason our country is not as great as it could be. Corporations are way too powerful and unregulated in the US. People think back to the "good old days" when banks, airlines, etc were more civil and products were better made. Guess what? They were also heavily regulated. In those good old days corporations actually had responsibility instead of trying to find loopholes to exploit and profits to maximize. If corporations are people, they suffer from antisocial personality disorder.
The US has forgotten the values that made it the greatest nation. Over the years, we've stopped investing in the US. We no longer reinvest our money in infrastructure, US manufacturing, or education. The country is like a child. If you nurture that child, educate her, invest in her health and well-being, she will grow up to be a productive member of society. If you abuse and neglect her, you will create a child who can never function in the world. The US is deteriorating from neglect, but she's not lost yet, but she's spiraling into wild-child territory.
We need to nurture and invest in our country. We need to educate our populace. We need to invest in infrastructure. We need to reign in and regulate corporations who have a stranglehold on our education, our food, our money, and our economy. We need to enforce the separation of church and state and not let religious dogma control our progress. It's no wonder in most of the countries that are doing it right the majority of the population is atheist. I'm not saying religion should be abolished, I'm saying it needs to be a private, not political, issue.
Unfortunately, not many people seem to see where the US could improve and those of us who do are passed off as unpatriotic communists. I long for a day where our country does the right thing, for the good of the people, not for the good of the religious right or for the good of the corporation.
Until then, I'll just rewatch all of The West Wing and eagerly await the return of The Newsroom. Life is much nicer in the Sorkinverse.
I ask the question "who is more patriotic:" The person waving an American flag made in China who is completely oblivious to the failings of his or her country, or the person who actively seeks American-made products, shops local for as many things as possible and knows that there is room for improvement and wants the US to improve those areas that are lacking?
I want the US to be the greatest nation, but it just isn't the case and unless we, as a nation, remove the wool from our collective eyes and ears and move off the couch and into the street, we will continue to be behind most of the world in, well, every area.
"Corporations are people, my friend." This concept/statement is part of the reason our country is not as great as it could be. Corporations are way too powerful and unregulated in the US. People think back to the "good old days" when banks, airlines, etc were more civil and products were better made. Guess what? They were also heavily regulated. In those good old days corporations actually had responsibility instead of trying to find loopholes to exploit and profits to maximize. If corporations are people, they suffer from antisocial personality disorder.
The US has forgotten the values that made it the greatest nation. Over the years, we've stopped investing in the US. We no longer reinvest our money in infrastructure, US manufacturing, or education. The country is like a child. If you nurture that child, educate her, invest in her health and well-being, she will grow up to be a productive member of society. If you abuse and neglect her, you will create a child who can never function in the world. The US is deteriorating from neglect, but she's not lost yet, but she's spiraling into wild-child territory.
We need to nurture and invest in our country. We need to educate our populace. We need to invest in infrastructure. We need to reign in and regulate corporations who have a stranglehold on our education, our food, our money, and our economy. We need to enforce the separation of church and state and not let religious dogma control our progress. It's no wonder in most of the countries that are doing it right the majority of the population is atheist. I'm not saying religion should be abolished, I'm saying it needs to be a private, not political, issue.
Unfortunately, not many people seem to see where the US could improve and those of us who do are passed off as unpatriotic communists. I long for a day where our country does the right thing, for the good of the people, not for the good of the religious right or for the good of the corporation.
Until then, I'll just rewatch all of The West Wing and eagerly await the return of The Newsroom. Life is much nicer in the Sorkinverse.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Question of the Week: Is Wikipedia bad for education?
Well, yes and no. Wikipedia can be a good jumping off point for educational endeavors and general knowledge, but it isn't a reliable resource for any kind of scholarly work. Thankfully, most of the teachers I've encountered specifically state in lesson plans that Wikipedia is not an acceptable resource for papers.
There are some who would argue that Wikipedia is fine. I'm not one of them. I don't feel that Wikipedia is reliable, and I certainly don't think it's always correct in its information.
For one, Wikipedia allows anyone to create and update entries. This can lead to some interesting updates, as we saw in 2011, when fans of Sarah Palin changed the Wikipedia entry for Paul Revere to reflect her incredibly erroneous recollection of history. Thankfully, the entry was corrected, but it begs the question about all the entries on Wikipedia that no one is policing. There is, in effect, no quality assurance on Wikipedia.
Also, I have a healthy education bias (shocking, I know) and I prefer to get my information from trusted and reputable sources. Experts in the field, as it were. As James Lowen taught me, always look at the source of the information. I would trust Wikipedia far more if Neil DeGrasse Tyson were updating writing entries rather than Joe Average with a laptop.
Wikipedia can be a good starting point for anyone doing research who doesn't know where to start. In fact, I feel the one of the only useful sections of any Wikipedia article is at the bottom of the entry-the sources. This is where the real information is contained. Reading the original source provides the most accurate (and hopefully objective) information.
Another useful section is the revision history. The revision history coincides with the sources and will help you determine if you're looking at the most up to date information (although, with historical entries like the one about Paul Revere above, most recent isn't necessarily most accurate.)
The main point to take away is that Wikipedia is a resource, but one that requires your critical thinking and deductive skills. Using Wikipedia is akin to being a detective. You cannot take it at face value, you must do your own research. Anything worth knowing is worth researching. And as always: Question Everything!
Well, yes and no. Wikipedia can be a good jumping off point for educational endeavors and general knowledge, but it isn't a reliable resource for any kind of scholarly work. Thankfully, most of the teachers I've encountered specifically state in lesson plans that Wikipedia is not an acceptable resource for papers.
There are some who would argue that Wikipedia is fine. I'm not one of them. I don't feel that Wikipedia is reliable, and I certainly don't think it's always correct in its information.
For one, Wikipedia allows anyone to create and update entries. This can lead to some interesting updates, as we saw in 2011, when fans of Sarah Palin changed the Wikipedia entry for Paul Revere to reflect her incredibly erroneous recollection of history. Thankfully, the entry was corrected, but it begs the question about all the entries on Wikipedia that no one is policing. There is, in effect, no quality assurance on Wikipedia.
Also, I have a healthy education bias (shocking, I know) and I prefer to get my information from trusted and reputable sources. Experts in the field, as it were. As James Lowen taught me, always look at the source of the information. I would trust Wikipedia far more if Neil DeGrasse Tyson were updating writing entries rather than Joe Average with a laptop.
Wikipedia can be a good starting point for anyone doing research who doesn't know where to start. In fact, I feel the one of the only useful sections of any Wikipedia article is at the bottom of the entry-the sources. This is where the real information is contained. Reading the original source provides the most accurate (and hopefully objective) information.
Another useful section is the revision history. The revision history coincides with the sources and will help you determine if you're looking at the most up to date information (although, with historical entries like the one about Paul Revere above, most recent isn't necessarily most accurate.)
The main point to take away is that Wikipedia is a resource, but one that requires your critical thinking and deductive skills. Using Wikipedia is akin to being a detective. You cannot take it at face value, you must do your own research. Anything worth knowing is worth researching. And as always: Question Everything!
Friday, February 1, 2013
I've come to realize that there is a lot about me that leads to social isolation. I am a dreaded morning person, I don't drink (I find nothing wrong with it, it just isn't for me) and people apparently don't like their grammar being corrected. Having a child is equally isolating. When most of your stories revolve around bodily fluids you don't get invited to many parties.
In fact, almost all major life changes come with a subsequent social isolation, even if only temporary. Beginning or graduating school, getting married, getting divorced, having a baby, moving, starting (or ending) a job. It's no wonder these events are considered some of the most stressful ones a person can experience. In each case we effectively lose a part of our social support system in addition to the major life change.
I recently received my acceptance letter to graduate school. I am positively over the moon that I'm finally, after nearly a decade, able to pursue my goal of going to graduate school. I'd always planned on going back but life got in the way. What started as two years to recover from educational burnout stretched out so long that it felt that I was dreaming the impossible dream. Maybe I still am, for now I have to negotiate graduate classes and a toddler. And I am scared shitless I won't be able to do it.
In all honesty, it wasn't truly "life" that got in the way. It was fear. In general I've been a "don't rock the boat, especially if you're in it" type person. Security is nice. You know where you stand, it's comfortable. True change never comes from being comfortable. You have to leave your comfort zone. It's scary. It's really easy to make excuses. And then all of a sudden nearly a decade has passed and whatever it was you wanted to do seems to be completely unattainable.
Lives lived in fear are never exceptional. I'm not talking about exceptional in the curing cancer or achieving peace in the Middle East sense. I'm talking about life being worth living. I know if I never got my Master's degree (at least) I would always feel regret and disappointment. I grew up with a mother who was terminally disappointed. Somewhere along the way she gave up. I spent most of my life trying to be perfect to make her happy, never realizing that it wasn't my fault or my responsibility. I don't want to make the same mistake with my children. It may be difficult, it may be scary, but at least my kids won't spend their lives thinking they were the source of my disappointment.
When you grow up that way, you try to fill the void. No one seems to fill the void with happy happy joy joy. You fill it with sex, with food, with money, with drugs, etc. But you're forever incomplete until you fill it with what you really need. For me, that's education. In addition to stopping the cycle of disappointed mothers in my family, making this change will set a huge example to my children. I will be demonstrating that education is a value, that it's never too late to pursue education and it will make it more likely that my children will pursue education themselves. These are the values that keep me on track when the negative self talk (and judgement from others about going back to school when I have a baby) starts up. Sure, it's uncomfortable, but that's the cost of change.
In fact, almost all major life changes come with a subsequent social isolation, even if only temporary. Beginning or graduating school, getting married, getting divorced, having a baby, moving, starting (or ending) a job. It's no wonder these events are considered some of the most stressful ones a person can experience. In each case we effectively lose a part of our social support system in addition to the major life change.
I recently received my acceptance letter to graduate school. I am positively over the moon that I'm finally, after nearly a decade, able to pursue my goal of going to graduate school. I'd always planned on going back but life got in the way. What started as two years to recover from educational burnout stretched out so long that it felt that I was dreaming the impossible dream. Maybe I still am, for now I have to negotiate graduate classes and a toddler. And I am scared shitless I won't be able to do it.
In all honesty, it wasn't truly "life" that got in the way. It was fear. In general I've been a "don't rock the boat, especially if you're in it" type person. Security is nice. You know where you stand, it's comfortable. True change never comes from being comfortable. You have to leave your comfort zone. It's scary. It's really easy to make excuses. And then all of a sudden nearly a decade has passed and whatever it was you wanted to do seems to be completely unattainable.
Lives lived in fear are never exceptional. I'm not talking about exceptional in the curing cancer or achieving peace in the Middle East sense. I'm talking about life being worth living. I know if I never got my Master's degree (at least) I would always feel regret and disappointment. I grew up with a mother who was terminally disappointed. Somewhere along the way she gave up. I spent most of my life trying to be perfect to make her happy, never realizing that it wasn't my fault or my responsibility. I don't want to make the same mistake with my children. It may be difficult, it may be scary, but at least my kids won't spend their lives thinking they were the source of my disappointment.
When you grow up that way, you try to fill the void. No one seems to fill the void with happy happy joy joy. You fill it with sex, with food, with money, with drugs, etc. But you're forever incomplete until you fill it with what you really need. For me, that's education. In addition to stopping the cycle of disappointed mothers in my family, making this change will set a huge example to my children. I will be demonstrating that education is a value, that it's never too late to pursue education and it will make it more likely that my children will pursue education themselves. These are the values that keep me on track when the negative self talk (and judgement from others about going back to school when I have a baby) starts up. Sure, it's uncomfortable, but that's the cost of change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)