I highly recommend watching the Indian movie: The great Indian kitchen. It does really offer a different perspective to anyone who believes that a housewife's job is better than a corporate drone's :)
It's not quite the same thing though, is it? You can walk away from one employer and go to another as long as you have employ-able skills. It's much harder to walk away from a marriage that is not working out for one and if some financial independence makes it easier to, then so be it!
I'm not arguing against choice, I'm arguing that despite downsides there are merits to having a homemaker and viewing the household as a team rather than a collection of individuals.
Perhaps the more equitable route is a household where both work fewer hours so both can be breadwinner and homemaker.
Reading this was nostalgic for me as this was how we'd write essays in my Indian high school. It's not so strange when we grow up developing our style to look like this :)
To me it sounds very self conscious, just like a high schooler or youthful university student who has not yet found an authentic voice but wants to sound literate. So probably more about the "high school" than the "Indian" part of your observation. I didn't finish the article.
I was on birth control for 5 years and had some friends on it too. My very anecdotal data is that: while none of us faced any mental health changes, there were some physiological changes that I did not like.
You're right that there are women who maybe severely impacted mental-health wise. But I think the benefits outweigh this as the lack of ability to control one's reproductive life can also be debilitating, mentally. And I like to think that impact is not much worse than what alcohol, drugs, even cough syrup can do to one's mental health. At least birth control can be stopped and is not addictive.
Unless you’re an addict you’re not taking alcohol/drugs/cough syrup on a daily basis though.
From my reading of this comment thread in general the issue really seems to be that you can’t see a doctor for free (at the point of use) in the US. Anecdotally I know a few people who have had difficult side effects on the pill, or medical issues which preclude them from using specific types. Speaking to a doctor once to get put on the best one for you, and then picking them up from the pharmacy monthly seems to work well and doesn’t seem like the “gatekeeping” people are ranting about in this thread. The idea that your pharmacist or doctor would have political or moral views on contraception that impacts their ability to do their job is crazy (to me). If that’s the case the entire system needs reviewed as opposed to making drugs available OTC.
You're absolutely right that, ideally, this would be a conversation with a professional, non-moralizing doctor.
But there could be many scenarios where one doesn't have access to such care - think of the uninsured, think of teenage girls who don't want their parents to know, think of women in abusive relationships who don't want to get pregnant, the list goes on. If you were on your partner's/parent's plan, there is no way you could visit an OBGYN without them knowing. In addition to this, like the other commenter mentioned, this has also somehow devolved into a political issue here.
Very interesting. It sounds like the issue is the healthcare system. When I was a teenager I could make a doctors appointment without my family knowing and without paying anyone or leaving a trace. It’s a side of the US system I hadn’t considered before (lack of privacy) so thanks for explaining it. Great that this will help some people but fixing the system seems much more important than letting people buy medicine OTC without advice and a review of their history.
>The idea that your pharmacist or doctor would have political or moral views on contraception that impacts their ability to do their job is crazy (to me)
Do you want to know how I know you're not from the US?
Medicine is stupidly fucking political and religious here in the US.
The system will be reviewed by your Christian elected official and validated by your Catholic hospital and affirmed by the SCOTUS and deemed satisfactory.
Interesting, because I have a theory that less dependence on cars would actually lead to fewer crazy, homeless people and more vibrant neighbourhoods: the reason being that lower income folks wouldn't have to spend so much time and money on cars. As tempting as it is to look away, we're only fracturing our society more by drawing lines between different income classes, if we don't invest in things like walkable neighbourhoods and public transport.
Gangs and homeless camps are generally endemic to urban areas, not rural ones, despite rural low income groups having a far greater need to rely on cars to get around.
Huh, this is even more interesting because I always thought that homeless folk gravitate towards city centers and not that urban areas cause homelessness. I'm not looking to contradict you, just saying it's funny how we look at the same things and completely reverse the cause and effects in our heads :)
My thinking is that homeless folks tend to move towards city centers because they are more noticed, have more footfalls go past them and hence is easier for them to get food/change etc. They would not be likely to go to the suburbs because they are harder to get around, there are fewer people around to help, and it's very easy to get the police called on you for loitering around someone's lawn.
Similarly outrageous things could be said about any country. <faux outrage> Would you prefer politicians who are in the pockets of lobbyists? Politicians who repeal regulation that keeps a bank with subpar risk management from getting too big to fail? </faux outrage>
No one has to blindly copy anyone. However, nuance seems to missing in western discussions these days (I say western because these are the discussions I'm mostly aware of). Nuance is difficult. When everything becomes hyperbole, it gets harder to learn best practices from other countries.
It's ironic that you say "nuance seems to missing in western discussions these days" after making a sweeping allegation about politicians and lobbyists.
Oh come on. I don’t have a dog in this particular fight, but if you can’t accept politicians being in the pockets of lobbyists as a premise for an argument you are either being naïve or intellectually dishonest.
I was merely trying to show how such strawman statements could be made for anybody and any country. I keep forgetting how tone and subtext can be lost in text format :)
If I were an economist/social scientist/political scientist, I would be grinning ear to ear right now. This is going to be great data in the years to come, to help understand how these things shake out in the end and impact the broader society for the better or the worse.
I doubt it will be a repeatable study. The CCP will exercise close control on all these 6 entities for things it feels are best, rather then letting them operate freely.
> One former customer service employee estimated that 60%-70% of the accounts they reviewed during a typical shift would have more than a dozen linked accounts. Another two former employees estimated 40% and 75%, respectively.
I don't think this necessarily means that 40%-75% of the accounts on Block's books were fake (as I took it to first mean from the summary). Could it just mean that the accounts that were set up for review based on high risk activity were predominantly fraudulent (as they should be)?
