Rachel’s Musings

Crimes committed against women because they are not following religious doctrines are increasing at an alarming rate in Iraq, reports AlterNet: “Violence against women is rampant, rising every day with the power of the militias. Beheadings, rapes, beatings, suicides through self-immolation, genital mutilation, trafficking and child abuse masquerading as marriage of girls as young as nine are all on the increase.” The voices inside Iraq who are speaking out against this violence are themselves threatened with death.      Continue reading this post » » »

As I have pointed out before, I have hypothyroidism and am having symptoms that may or may not be related to it. In my quest to be an informed patient, I have been looking for a lot of research. It is rather tedious, especially since I have to get through a lot of misinformation that is on the Internet. Fortunately, I have found a site that looks like it’s done the work for me: MyThyroid.com. It confirms a lot of what I have learned in easy to read summaries of current research with links to the original papers.  The FAQs reference the most recent research, at least on the optimal treatment page.

The research confirms my suspicion: I am tired because I didn’t get enough sleep, not because my thyroid is out of whack (for example). If I am cold, I just get some tea to warm me up. Adding T3 might not be a good idea, especially since there isn’t a lot of benefit (the body produces primarily T4 and converts that to T3 as needed; T3 is very potent and thus can cause hyper symptoms very quickly).

It might be frustrating to accept that there isn’t an easy solution to the many symptoms we might experience. It would be so much easier if they’d just disappear with one small pill rather than a life-style overhaul because they’re not really caused by hypothyroidism (because the blood tests are normal).  Of course, there might be some fine-tuning that’s necessary but once the blood levels of the hormone are normal, the thyroid is very likely not to blame.

At a U.S. theater near you, a movie is being shown that simply is anti-science propaganda: “Expelled.” With such obvious garbage playing in the United States, it is clear why we’re losing scientific ground to other countries. This is a concern to some CEOs but our politicians don’t seem to mind.  The US ranks second lowest in acceptance of evolution. Clearly, movies like Expelled won’t help. (Scientists largely support evolution – not a big surprise there).

So, what’s wrong with Expelled? Check out the Scientific American article on it. Or take a look at what the Center for Inquiry has to say. Even FOX doesn’t like it. (Thanks to CFI for these three links!). Or check out what Richard Dawkins had to say about the movie.

And in case you need convincing: Intelligent Design is not science but rather Creationism in new clothes. You can read a CFI position paper on that or watch an excellent Nova show on the Dover Trial. PBS has also created a multi-part series on evolution, which is very fascinating.

Although I disagree with Robin Norwood’s diagnosis in Women Who Love Too Much, I think some of the behavioral patterns she is describing are real (even if she made up a lot of those case histories). We need to find a way of explaining the patterns that does not blame the victim but rather empowers them. Re-labeling co-dependency as “internalized oppression” might be counter-productive because it is such a broad idea and it might not be supported by evidence. I would like to propose a new hypothesis: internalized singlism and matrimania.

Bella DePaulo points out eloquently in her book Singled Out that we live in a society that stigmatizes singles (singlism) and elevates marriage to the must-have cure-all of all unhappiness (matrimania). Both of these ideas are also internalized. From a young age, especially women are bombarded with the idea that we can only prove our lovability through marriage. The ring on our finger shows the world: Look! I made it! Someone loves me! Girlfriends – we learn – are fine to have but they are expendable, yet, somehow will always be there. Once we found The One, we won’t need them anymore, he will meet our every need, share all our interests, and we’ll live happily ever after. Ideas like this make it difficult to leave a relationship because we would be marked as unlovable since we lost our proof. They make us desperate to find and stay in a relationship.

And, of course, biology plays into this, too. A lot. Reproduction is an important biological driver as a part of evolution. However, the nuclear family is not a biological need. The idea of separate spheres and its mutation to the relegation of the man to the breadwinner role and the woman to the safe haven of the home are not reflecting biological needs. They are social constructs (which are even reflected in the nomenclature for our species: every mammal is of the breast, the nurturing aspect; homo sapien reflects the (male) ability to reason, to be out in the world, distinguishing us from the other animals). The concept of the soul mate in marriage is a rather recent invention. So is the individual pursuit of happiness, which is an idea encouraged since the Enlightenment. The two have been very strongly linked: We now pursue happiness by finding a soul mate. This linkage is not surprising since the idea of a soul mate developed around the time of the Enlightenment. It might even have been a reaction to some people’s attempts to take the ideas of the Enlightenment to their logical consequences and do things like give women the right to vote. The idea of separate spheres sprang up and was quickly absorbed into culture, preventing any ideas of equality to take hold. Marriage changed from an almost purely economic institution to one based on love, which was best expressed if both partners were experts in their sphere. Only after the second world war did the breadwinner truly become the sole provider: it was now economically possible to support a family with one income. The cracks were, of course, starting to show and marriage changed again. Or did it? Marriage remains the institution that is most coveted and least questioned. It remains a rite of passage to adulthood. And we remain stuck with the idea that we are somehow incomplete as one. Even though we have broken down the walls between the separate spheres, two remains better than one. As social animals, we interact, of course. Social relationships are what made us human and they remain extremely important. They do not have to be confined to one person, though. We can move beyond matrimania and view all our relationships as important and worthy our attention.

I have been fascinated by Ken Miller, the evolutionary biologist who was one of the key witnesses at the Dover trial. Here is this brilliant defender of evolution. And then he’s a Catholic. I just don’t get it! I could maybe understand some New Age mumbo jumbo, but Catholic? Well, the Pew Forum interviewed another great scientist: Francis Collins who is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. The people who brought use the DNA evidence for evolution. Collins is an evangelical Christian. The interview reflects my suspicion that combining Christian faith with science requires quite some mental acrobatics. And a good magic wand: the mystery wand.      Continue reading this post » » »

I was saddened to see that the Center for Inquiry’s Office of Public Policy is jumping onto the marriage-for-all bandwagon without questioning the institution itself. While they acknowledge that marriage automatically comes with a large set of “legal, social, and economic benefits,” CFI stops short at asking if that is discrimination we want to perpetuate. Bestowing these benefits on people simply because they’ve “tied the knot” – whether as part of a civil union or a marriage – is part of the historical baggage that comes with marriage that might be appropriate to leave behind. There are other relationships, such as those with close friends or among siblings, that might warrant equal standing for the rights to those benefits, as, for example, Kay Trimberger and Bella DePaulo have pointed out in their work on singles.

I have left a comment urging CFI not to simply jump onto the marriage bandwagon. The current institution excludes same-sex couples, which clearly is discriminatory. Yet, we need to go beyond questioning that type of discrimination and look at the broader discrimination inherent in the benefits by asking whether marriage/civil unions should get automatic rights. I would second Michael LaSala’s call for a “critical view of the privileges of marriage.” (Michael C. LaSala. Too Many Eggs in the Wrong Basket: A Queer Critique of the Same-Sex Marriage Movement. SocialWork. Volume 52, Number 2. April 2007.). He calls on us to “advocate for freedom of sexual expression as well as economic and legal equity for all, regardless of marital status, relationship style, or sexual orientation.” It would be great if CFI were to heed that call.