I just saw this on CNN and feel the need to alert everyone!
It is called spokeo and acts like a google for people. It pulls information on people from social networks, online orders, google earth, bills, etc.
If your name comes up in a search it can tell people your age, address, race, interests, hobbies, phone number, estimated income and home value, etc. !!!!?????!!!!!
It is like asking for identity theft.
This. Is. Awful.
What can you do? Remove your name.
There is a barely visible option in gray, itty bittty print at the bottom that says "privacy." You can click on that to remove your name BUT it asks for your email address :(
Then, even more disgusting, it isn't necessarily removed. I checked after removing my name and they just changed one aspect of my previous address (instead of "Drive" they made my address end with "Road") and still had all the same info up so DOUBLE CHECK to make sure your information is, in fact, removed.
Worse yet, they cap off the amount of people you can remove. I tried to take off my parents' and grandparents' names but the evil genius who set up this system said that "to protect our safety" (I call BS!) they limit the names that can be removed by one email address so the system is "not abused" !!!!????!!!!
Anyways, I just thought y'all should know so you could remove your personal information so it isn't a click away from an identity theft or a stalker or a robber. I hate to be a pessimist but you never know if those personal details got in the hands of the wrong person...
I really encourage you to remove your name(s). And, tell your friends!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
More Menstruation: a funny article
I found a funny though far-fetched article that really makes you think. Plus it has some creative photos!
It is called "If Men Could Menstruate" and I promise it isn't gory or gross, but quite thought-provoking and I think correct in its assumptions of how different menstruation would be if men did it and not women...
Check it out here.
Crazy right? And so clever. Probably correct?
So why would it be so different? Why don't we, as women, work menstruation in our favor like men would? Why do we hide it as a shameful thing when men would boast and compete?
Men don't menstruate; we do. Now let's do something to own that a little more proudly.
I'm not saying we should run around announcing our periods and truly bragging about them BUT Gloria Steinem (the author) was onto something. I mean men won't begin menstruating anytime soon but I think we can get a little more in her hypothetical male mindset regarding menstruation. Wouldn't it be nice to have a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea or federally funded sanitary supplies?
Our first step towards these things is simply not to be ashamed of the natural process of menstruation; I mean it is what allows us to continue our species on earth! That is something to be pretty proud of :)
It is called "If Men Could Menstruate" and I promise it isn't gory or gross, but quite thought-provoking and I think correct in its assumptions of how different menstruation would be if men did it and not women...
Check it out here.
Crazy right? And so clever. Probably correct?
So why would it be so different? Why don't we, as women, work menstruation in our favor like men would? Why do we hide it as a shameful thing when men would boast and compete?
Men don't menstruate; we do. Now let's do something to own that a little more proudly.
I'm not saying we should run around announcing our periods and truly bragging about them BUT Gloria Steinem (the author) was onto something. I mean men won't begin menstruating anytime soon but I think we can get a little more in her hypothetical male mindset regarding menstruation. Wouldn't it be nice to have a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea or federally funded sanitary supplies?
Our first step towards these things is simply not to be ashamed of the natural process of menstruation; I mean it is what allows us to continue our species on earth! That is something to be pretty proud of :)
Friday, May 14, 2010
ERA Still Not Passed: sad and shocking
E.R.A. - You would think this stands for "Ever Really Amendable?"
In fact E.R.A. stands for the "Equal Rights Amendment" which was brought before Congress in 1923.
It still hasn't passed. No need to do the math. I did (and double-checked with a calculator!).
EIGHTY-SEVEN YEARS!?! And this has yet to be passed.
What is it, you ask? It is as follows:
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. (taken from here)
From its defeat in 1982 until his death last year, Senator Ted Kennedy was the lead sponsor for this bill, continuing to bring it forth in Congress. But this is not just a Democrat thing. It is fully bi-partisan, as seen in the teamwork of the new lead sponsors: Judy Biggert, R-IL and Carolyn Maloney, D-NY.
So why do we need this anyways?
Many claim that the 14th amendment with the Equal Protection Clause took care of what the ERA is trying to address.
If one only read Section 1 of the 14th amendment (where the Equal Protection Clause comes from), it would seem that, yes, there is no need for the ERA. However, if you haven't already, go back and read Section 2 of the 14th amendment.
I hope you noticed the word "male." Basically, Section 2 is a direct contradiction of Section 1, in that it says it will defend all MEN - not citizens - in their right to vote. Women are completely left out.
It is for that very reason that the First Wave of the women's movement became so wrapped up in the right of women to vote which was eventually passed in 1920 with the 19th amendment.
But that only guaranteed women a vote. It did not guarantee ALL of their rights. Thus, just a few years later in 1923, Alice Paul wrote the ERA in an attempt to prevent any more Section 2s like the one found in the 14th amendment which would exclude women in the protection of their rights.
Note, however, that the ERA does not exclude men of this protection. It is gender-neutral in that is simply says the equality of rights should not be denied "on account of sex" whether female or male.
Not to be a broken record, but 87 years later, this is still not a U.S. law.
However, because I am an optimist, I would like to provide encouragement by turning your attention to our Constitution's most recent amendment. This amendment, the 27th passed in 1992, states that any pay changes Congress makes for themselves cannot take effect until the next term.
Like the ERA, this seems simple enough, right?
Wrong. If you noticed the date it was proposed, 1789 (yes that is a 7; I did not make a typo), it seems Congress struggled with this simple decision for 203 years.
So clearly sensible bills can eventually get passed.
But I hope we don't have to wait another century or so before we can have equal rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens regardless of their gender. Here again is the Equal Rights Amendment:
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
In fact E.R.A. stands for the "Equal Rights Amendment" which was brought before Congress in 1923.
It still hasn't passed. No need to do the math. I did (and double-checked with a calculator!).
EIGHTY-SEVEN YEARS!?! And this has yet to be passed.
What is it, you ask? It is as follows:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. (taken from here)
That is it. In its entirety.
Simple enough, right? But it has still not passed :(
It was written by Alice Paul in 1923 and presented (and defeated) in Congress for nearly the next 50 years.
Then, on March 22, 1972, it passed the House and Senate. The next step: have it ratified by 38 states, the 2/3 vote required to pass any amendment into law.
They states were given 7 years to ratify it and when the goal had yet to be met, Congress extended the deadline until June of 1982. Sadly, even with the extra time, the goal was never met.
They were so close; 35 states ratified the ERA. The 15 states who have yet to ratify it are below:
- Alabama
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Florida
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Louisiana
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Nevada
- North Carolina
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- Utah
- Virginia
From its defeat in 1982 until his death last year, Senator Ted Kennedy was the lead sponsor for this bill, continuing to bring it forth in Congress. But this is not just a Democrat thing. It is fully bi-partisan, as seen in the teamwork of the new lead sponsors: Judy Biggert, R-IL and Carolyn Maloney, D-NY.
So why do we need this anyways?
Many claim that the 14th amendment with the Equal Protection Clause took care of what the ERA is trying to address.
If one only read Section 1 of the 14th amendment (where the Equal Protection Clause comes from), it would seem that, yes, there is no need for the ERA. However, if you haven't already, go back and read Section 2 of the 14th amendment.
I hope you noticed the word "male." Basically, Section 2 is a direct contradiction of Section 1, in that it says it will defend all MEN - not citizens - in their right to vote. Women are completely left out.
It is for that very reason that the First Wave of the women's movement became so wrapped up in the right of women to vote which was eventually passed in 1920 with the 19th amendment.
But that only guaranteed women a vote. It did not guarantee ALL of their rights. Thus, just a few years later in 1923, Alice Paul wrote the ERA in an attempt to prevent any more Section 2s like the one found in the 14th amendment which would exclude women in the protection of their rights.
Note, however, that the ERA does not exclude men of this protection. It is gender-neutral in that is simply says the equality of rights should not be denied "on account of sex" whether female or male.
Not to be a broken record, but 87 years later, this is still not a U.S. law.
However, because I am an optimist, I would like to provide encouragement by turning your attention to our Constitution's most recent amendment. This amendment, the 27th passed in 1992, states that any pay changes Congress makes for themselves cannot take effect until the next term.
Like the ERA, this seems simple enough, right?
Wrong. If you noticed the date it was proposed, 1789 (yes that is a 7; I did not make a typo), it seems Congress struggled with this simple decision for 203 years.
So clearly sensible bills can eventually get passed.
But I hope we don't have to wait another century or so before we can have equal rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens regardless of their gender. Here again is the Equal Rights Amendment:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
If you agree with this amendment, please call or email or even write a letter to your local congress man or woman and insist that we finally make this a law.
Information I have listed on the ERA and more can be found here. In addition, in researching this, particularly the amendments, I found this very cool website. It even has pictures you can zoom in on of the actual handwritten documents. I highly encourage y'all to peruse both of these sites.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
I Wanna Move to Mauritania: a different view of beauty
fat:
Pronunciation: \ˈfat\
Function: adjective
1 notable for having an unusual amount of fat: a : plump b : obese
2 well filled out : thick, big
This is according to Merriam-Webster Online.
But if you asked the average American woman, she would probably define "fat" as "ugly."
In America, this is in. Always.
But what if being bigger was seen as beautiful?
It is in a place called Mauritania, located on the northwest coast of Africa.
Believe it or not, thick ankles, plump arms, and a big butt are considered the most beautiful parts of a woman!?! I feel like I could fit right in after all of my exam stress binges (namely on coconut m&ms! SIDE NOTE: try those if you haven't already... they are delicious!!!) ;)
In Mauritania, thin women are thought to be sick and bigger women are thought to be sexy... the men even like stretch marks. I am not making this up!
Many say the more you weigh the better chances you have of finding a husband. Like I said, I wanna move to Mauritania ;)
In all seriousness though, this is actually a problem. The overweight ideal became exaggerated to an unhealthy state and just as the American ideal of thinness lead to health problems in the form of anorexia and bulimia, this country's young girls also suffer from eating disorders.
Theirs, however, is known as gavage, a practice of force feeding. This is the same process used to fatten up animals for slaughter and nourish hospital patients using a tube.
In Mauritania, "some young girls spend hours each day in the stifling heat, forced to stuff themselves with couscous and high-fat camel's milk. Vomiting only leads to another helping of food." (1)
This is so much the ideal that "even in Mauritania's more progressive cities, some women are willing to do anything for a fuller figure, including buying black-market drugs meant for animals." (1)
Not fun, right? This is all done to increase their desirability to a future husband.
Just like American girls starving themselves is not fun and is often not done for themselves but to look desirable in the eyes of men and a society that holds a nearly unattainable beauty ideal. A beauty ideal that is the polar opposite of Mauritania's.
So, as bathing suit season approaches, be encouraged that you are beautiful, even if not by the standards of your own country. Whether you are thinner or bigger, as long as you are healthy, have fun at the beach and don't be afraid to bust out that bikini!
Reference:
(1)The information on Mauritania came from Oprah.com's Beauty Around the World. The slideshow details not only that country but several others and their views of beauty. Check it out...
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Rape: Just the Facts
- Over half a million women are raped each year in the US alone (this only includes those who report it)
- 1 in 4 women in the US are raped in their lifetimes (again, these are only the ones who report it)
- About 2/3 of rapes are thought to go unreported
- About 83% of rapes are committed by people the victim knows
- 1st being a former husband/boyfriend... someone with whom the victim was in love
- 2nd being someone the respondent knew well... friend, co-worker, classmate, etc.
- 3rd being an acquaintance
- 4th being a spouse
- 5th - with ONLY 4% - being a stranger
- Marital rape was not made illegal in all 50 states until July 1993!?!
- The first few thousand years of history, the only rapes punished were those that defiled virgins
- They were considered crimes against property (the property of their husband/father) and these men were reimbursed for property damages
- Every 7 minutes, a woman is raped in the US
- 10% of rape victims are men
- most are raped by other men
- most of them - perpetrator and victim - are HETEROsexual
- these rapes typically happen in prisons
- Women between the age of 16-24 are 2 to 3 times more likely to be raped than older women
- The "date rape" drug, Rohypnol, is 10 times stronger than Valium
- it has no taste, odor, or color and is, thus, almost impossible to detect
- it kicks in within 30 minutes and can last up to 8 hours
- it can often cause a blackout that can last up to 24 hours leaving the victims with no memory of what happened
- Victims often suffer after the rape with sexual, physical, emotional and mental problems
- some even develop PTSD
All of this information came from my Human Sexuality textbook, chapter 18 on Sexual Coercion... this was my much needed study break as I suffer through reviewing all 19 of its chapters for my last final on Monday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)