Women and Heart Disease

My grandmother was in the hospital two weeks ago due to a variety of health concerns that had left her on the verge of collapse.  She’s okay now (thanks to everyone who has been supportive through this!), but my family learned from her doctors that she has likely suffered a minor heart attack sometime in the past weeks.

We were shocked to hear this.  Heart attack?  There had been no signs-- no chest tightening, no irregular heartbeat, no arm pain, nothing.  

That is when the doctor informed us that women actually experience different heart attack symptoms than men.  A heart attack in a man presents itself in the ways enumerated above.  Women, however, are more likely to experience shortness of breath, extreme fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness as symptoms of their heart attacks.  My grandma had experienced several of these symptoms recently, but had no idea of their deeper significance.  And she's not alone-- heart attacks in women are often misdiagnosed and it is not unusual for a woman to be sent home when presenting her symptoms.  The symptoms we are taught to look for often do not appear in women at all.  In fact, 43% of women do not ever experience the primary tell-tale sign, chest pains, during a heart attack, even though many emergency room doctors still consider this the primary symptom.

This has huge implications for women's health.  Without knowing something is wrong (assuming she survives an initital undiagnosed heart attack), a woman will delay crucial treatment and lifestyle changes necessary to prevent her heart disease from progressing.  As heart disease is the number one killer of women, the importance of this cannot be underestimated.

For many years, the medical establishment didn’t believe women could even experience heart disease, because cases and symptoms were never observed or recorded.   Even after this realization, research continued to be conducted only on male subjects and women's treatment was systemically delivered less aggressively than treatment for male patients.  Unsurprisingly, women showed a much higher incidence of mortality from heart disease.  It is only within the last 10 years that the scientific community finally acknowledged and began steps to remedy the gender bias in heart disease research and treatment.

Yet, women still have a higher mortality rate from heart disease due to the lingering effects of this gender bias.  While enormous steps have been taken to close the disparity, our culture still assumes a male patient and perspective on this issue.  We need to escape this mindset if we are going to fix this problem.  It's common sense: we must research and acknowledge the unique needs, lifestyles, and biochemistry of women if we are to provide the best life outcomes for women.  

An important first step is simply to spread awareness.  I was not aware of the ways that heart attack symptoms present differently in women, and I'm sure that I am not alone.  This needs to be common knowledge, so please spread this information to the women (and men) in your life!  Let's start talking.

Sex as Civil Resistance

In Togo this week, the women's faction of a civil rights coalition is encouraging women to stage a week-long sex strike in order to demand political reforms.  According to leadership of the group, Let's Save Togo, the strike, which began yesterday, will place pressure on Togolese men to demand the resignation of President Gnassingbe and put an end to a political system which allows unlimited electoral terms.

​This campaign leaves me somewhat conflicted.

On the one hand, in an era which glorifies electoral politics at the expense of the wide spectrum of political activity, this example of civil disobedience is truly exciting.  It is made more remarkable by the fact that women are organizing as a political force on the basis of their sex, following in a grand tradition which spans from the March on Versailles during the French Revolution to the Chilean March of the Empty Pots in 1971 to the reproductive-rights protests currently occurring outside the Republican National Convention in Florida.

On the other hand, the sex strike is problematic for several reasons:

First, it assumes that in order for their concerns to be heard, women must pressure their men to pressure the government-- women's voices, in and of themselves, hold no value.  And the only way for women to exert such pressure on the men-folk is through their bodies, as opposed to intellect, reason, moral suasion, etc.  Even as they engage in serious political activity, women are once again reduced to their sexual and biological functions.

Secondly, any type of coercion, including sexual coercion, dilutes the moral force of the issue, itself.  Using gimmicks and tricks to gain support is ineffective and generally weakens the cause in the long run.  

Finally, using sex as a weapon is damaging to all individuals in society.   Withholding sex to gain something, commodifies sex, itself.  It engages all participants in a type of prostitution.  Furthermore, this type of action reinforces the antedeluvian notion that sex is some "gift" that women exclusively hold--- perpetuating damaging myths about girls, virginity, purity, and the mother-whore dichotomy--rather than a mutually-enjoyable activity between two (or three or four) individuals.

​For once, I don't intend to resolve this ambivalence.  But I do wonder what the consequences of this kind of political activity are, and am left pondering that age-old question, "Do the ends justify the means?"

"Legitimate" Abortion: What We Should Be Talking About in the Akin Fiasco

Everyone is talking about the insensitive and ignorant remarks made last week by Missouri House Representative Todd Akin, who, when asked to defend his stance against abortion even in the case of rape, claimed that pregnancy as result of rape was practically impossible.  Supported by the latest research from Pseudoscience CrazyNutJob Weekly, Akin stated that "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

I'm not going to delve into what a bonehead this guy is-- the 24 hours news circuit is covering that pretty well.  I do want to use this conversation to take a step back and examine the way we talk about abortion in this country.

​A very long-standing pro-choice response to anti-abortion arguments is "Well, what about abortion in cases of rape or incest?"  (This is where Akin got himself into hot water).  It's an easy talking point to invoke, because pretty much anyone with a heart will admit that a pregnancy under such horrifying instances, in which a woman had no choice to have sex in the first place, and therefore is in no way responsible for her pregnancy, is an exception to the "no abortions ever" rule.
​

I understand that the intention of asking  "What about cases of rape?"  may have initially been to expose a logical inconsistency* in the pro-life argument (which has been futile given how comfortable people are living with cognitive dissonance).   But this is not the way it's being used: pro-choice politicians regularly frame any argument for abortion rights in terms of victims of rape and incest.  It's a cheap way to draw sympathy to the cause, and it's insensitive to actual rape and incest survivors.

​Furthermore, the tactic is truly dangerous and disempowering for women, because the implication is that abortion needs to be available just in case.  All other reasons for abortion rights are considered secondary and illegitimate.  The voices of all women who choose abortion outside of rape or health concerns, or support the right to one, are silenced.  The discussion leaves out the myriad of reasons why abortion rights are essential: so that women can control their lives and bodies, so women can choose the number and spacing of their children, so that families can make responsible decisions, so that women for whom contraception and education are not readily available have some protection. 

Abortion is a sensitive issue, for sure, but until we start acknowledging the real needs of women regarding their reproductive health choices, women will never be able to lead free and self-fulfilled lives.  It starts when we agree on the basic principle, with no equivocation or euphemism, that women should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies.  Period.

*If you truly believe in the personhood of a fetus, as many pro-lifers do, it really would not matter how the pregnancy was derived.  That pregnancy would still be perceived as a human child and to abort it would be murder.  I don't agree with this, obviously, but this is the logic of the argument.   If pro-lifers are willing to equivocate in the instances of rape, I believe, then their reason for being against abortion cannot be because they believe human life starts at conception, as is commonly argued.  Consequently, one can assume, that anti-abortion regulation is really intended to control women's behavior.  In other words, if you don't choose to have sex (in the case of rape), you can have an abortion, but if you did choose to have sex, that option is off limits because... how dare you be such a hussy!  Akin is actually one of the few who is logically consistent in his views.  He went onto say in his notorious interview that, for cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, " I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

Framing the Issue: The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Domestic Violence Discourse and Services

Finally acknowledging the causal links between lack of preventative care, poor health outcomes, and soaring healthcare costs, the Women’s Preventative Care Amendment of the Affordable Care Act went into effect last week.  As of August 1st, 2012 insurance companies must provide for several essential women’s services free of charge, including annual woman-care visits, gestational diabetes screenings, STI and HIV counseling, breastfeeding support, HPV DNA testing, and, that holy grail, contraception.  

As we joyously bid adieu to copays, we cannot underestimate the revolutionary significance of these provisions.  For the first time in this country, women’s mental, reproductive, and sexual health are being recognized as essential components of the overall health and well-being of women and their families.  

One among the mandated services has especially caught my attention for this reason: screening and counseling for domestic violence.

(S)He Works Hard for the Money

Men are increasingly entering traditionally female-dominated professions, according to recent analysis. Shaila Dewan and Robert Gebeloff reveal that

An analysis of census data by The New York Times shows that from 2000 to 2010, occupations that are more than 70 percent female accounted for almost a third of all job growth for men, double the share of the previous decade.

Dewan and Gebeloff offer a variety of plausible explanations for this trend, including “financial concerns, quality-of-life issues, and a gradual erosion of stereotypes.” They hypothesize that the stigma of entering female-dominated professions is lessoning, while, at the same time, the stability of female dominated professions compared to male-dominated professions is increasingly attractive in the current economy.

Whatever the reason, I believe this trend has interesting implications for not only the gender segregation of labor, but the value of such labor.

Since the rise of wage-labor during the Industrial Revolution, women's labor has consistently been devalued relative to men's labor.* This was the subject of my first blog post, in which I argued that the “caring professions,” including nursing, teaching, and social work, are specifically devalued due to being female-dominated professions.

The introduction of men into the “pink collar” professions may change all this. With more men entering these professions, it is possible that the segregation of labor may slowly begin to erode. Consequently, as both men and women are represented proportionally in various professions, the formerly-female-dominated jobs will no longer be stigmatized as “female,” and will presumably demand a more equitable salary based on merit, rather than gender.

This is a promising idea, but it also troubles me for several reasons:

Can Social Media be a Vehicle for Social Change?

By now, many of you are familiar with the uproar surrounding the Susan G. Komen Foundation.  While many terrible things were discovered this week, there were also a few positive take-aways.  Among them, is the proof that, under the right circumstances, social media can be effectively utilized for social change.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, I’ll summarize: On January 31, the Komen Foundation decided to exclude Planned Parenthood from its list of grantee recipients, stating that it does not   award money to any organization under federal investigation (for an excellent refutation of this premise, see here).  However, as quickly acknowledged by the public, the ostensible reason served as a thin veil for the pro-life pandering of the Foundation’s leadership.

The public reaction was swift and clear:  there would be no support for a foundation which claims to support women’s health, yet hypocritically refused to assist an organization that provides routine checkups, cancer screenings, counseling, birth control, and STD testing for uninsured women.  News about the decision quickly flooded Facebook status updates, twitter feeds, and emails.  Thanks to Planned Parenthood and Moveon.org social media savvy, internet petitions against the Komen Foundation soon circulated.  Former advocates pledged to remove their support, or transfer it directly to Planned Parenthood.  Several high-level employees of the Komen Foundation resigned.  
The American public also spoke with its pocketbook.  Last year, Planned Parenthood was the recipient of over $680,000 from the Komen Foundation, which was earmarked for breast cancer screenings and treatment.  This amount of money was quickly surpassed by an outraged populace.  Within days, $3 milion was generated for Planned Parenthood, including a $250,000 matching grant from Mayor Bloomberg and a $100,000 donation from LIVESTRONG.

On February 3, the Komen Foundation bowed to the massive pressure and re-instated funding to Planned Parenthood.  In all, this was a huge victory women’s health proponents (although complicated by the fact that, as a country, we depend on private donors, in the first place, to ensure basic human rights).  However, beyond this, what I find fascinating is the instrumental role that social media played in affecting this outcome-- which leads me to the title of this post:

Can the internet, specifically social media sites, be a vehicle for social change?

To Protect and Serve Whom: the Red Herring of Prostitution Convictions

According to a recent Feministe article, the New York City Police Department is engaged in a practice which may be counter-intuitive to public safety. Current law enforcement policy allows for the use of condoms as evidence in the prosecution of prostitutes. This is deeply problematic for several reasons, mainly that it is a major disincentive for sex workers (and a disincentive for folks, in general) to carry prophylactics. As reporter Crystal DeBoise notes:

This practice is an outright slap in the face to the decades of hard work that public health advocates have undertaken to increase safe sex, decrease HIV and create a positive shift in the cultural acceptance of condom use. This policy discourages a stigmatized and marginalized group of sexually active people from carrying the tools they need to be healthy and safe.

Is it ADHD?

Let's do a little thought experiment:  Imagine you are teaching a student with ADHD. They have trouble focusing in class and controlling their actions. They are disorganized, procrastinate on assignments, and have difficulty completing even the simplest of tasks. Assignments are cluttered with careless mistakes and sloppy handwriting. Classroom behavior is unruly, at best.

Now, my big question:

Why It's Important to Be an Ugly Middle School Kid

"Hundreds of preteen children treated for eating disorders"
I read the article above today, which left me extremely sad, although less shocked than I care to admit. Eating disorders numbers are up among girls, ages five to thirteen, according to a British report by The Telegraph. Data from over 35 hospitals in England reveals that over 2,100 patients under the age of 16 have been treated for eating disorders, although sources acknowledge that this is a gross underestimate of both hospital admittances and the overall extent of the problem.

Worst-Paying College Majors

Thanks to Mark Morales for posting this on his facebook:

13 Worst Paying College Majors

This slideshow, presented by our dear friends at Huffington Post, documents the “13 Worst-Paying College Majors” in the United States. For those of you who are too tired to click the hyperlink (I understand, I had a long day, too), here's the list:

1. Children and Family Studies
2. Elementary Education
3. Social Work
4. Culinary Arts
5. Special Education
6. Recreation and Leisure Studies
7. Religious Studies
8. Athletic Training
9. Public Health
10. Theology
11. Art
12. Art History
13. Paralegal

What stands out right away is how many of these majors-- 5 out of 13 (not including theology, although an argument could be made for it)-- lead to the so-called “caring” professions. These are the jobs that directly relate to the growth, development, wellness, aging, and general care of people. Among these professionals are teachers, nurses, social workers, caretakers, and counselors. They are some of the hardest working individuals in the country, and their jobs exact heavy emotional and physical stress. The value of their work is immeasurable. Yet, if we were to measure it--- say, by salary-- we see that they are technically the most devalued professions in this country.

Why is this?