here's a thought.

ren wrote: Oh yes, I know. research for this just would take so long. But the principle remains the same. Having parts of your body constantly squeezed IS bad for health. For example we know for men that wearing briefs is bad for health... And briefs are nowehere near as tight (and hard) as bras.

So, once again, for bras it's only speculation, but a common sense assumption to make that maybe the reason why this particular part of your body is at incredibly high risk, compared to people who have breasts yet do not wear bras (men) and people who had breasts yet did not wear bras (ancestors), is that you wear bras. A tight, hard, fashion item. Definitely worth investigating imo.

Overall Brenna you make a good point about culture. In cultures where men and women are not equal and not expected to respect each other it seems quite natural that they do not mix. But in our culture, the opposite is true, meaning it really has no place here.

Um. that was my point though. It has been investigated in many studies and none of the studies could find a link between wearing a bra and increased breast cancer link. Its speculation and guess work. And as I pointed out, the risk is linked to estrogen levels, which is why men are less likely to get it. They have less estrogen, not because they dont wear bras. :dry:

Im not sure if you read my example, but the issue wasnt a lack of respect between genders. It was an issue of a cultural belief against a women being allowed to be seen naked...


Also, In NZ theres no such "men have to work longer than woman nonsense" Im a little taken aback by that. Though, i'm intrigued. What was the justification for it?

Ecthalion wrote: I'm usually against discrimination, for any reason, but I make an exception in this case. If the thought of having her breasts examined by a man puts a woman off then she may not have the procedure. This might cost her life. Discrimination is ok (I think) if it saves lives.

I wouldn't call this discrimination in the first place, it's personal choice. I deliberately chose a female GP the last time because some of the male doctors I've had in the past were brutes. (I'm male, btw.). I don't hate men.

For me, discrimination starts where you make generalized assumptions. Making a personal choice because of previous experience has to be allowed without judgment.

Honestly, I think it's more because here in America, we're simply law suit happy.

All it takes is an allegation of something inappropriate, and either the doctor, nurse, or patient could be in for a whole world of hurt, drama, and financial strain.

ren wrote:

Anyanwu wrote: I don't think its the same thing? Sex is a biological thing while race is socially constructed. Also sex has a "gender" construct on top of it (Girls like pink Boys like blue nonsense), which I think is another problem to add to the mix.

Race is a very biological thing I'm afarid. It's the new feminist definition of "gender" that says it is constructed. Personally I also think that we have more sex-based social attitudes than we have racial ones.... Then again there seems to be some sort whole "black culture" and misappropriation of culture thing goinmg on around some circles... Personally I don't really care when black people wear "white people" clothes (rofl), I'm white european, the wife is black african, and we both think it's all a load of bollocks.
funny trivia: Before pink was marketed for girls (an now women) it was a boy colour. It was seen as softer (for babies) than red (blood/men). Girls would be dressed in blue, seen as a proper soft colour. If you add certain biological facts to the equation it makes the whole thing even more hilarious. I think the current reason behind all the "pink" marketing efforts is to create a false sense of girl power whilst making sure parents have to pay again for what the bigger brother already had and stopped using.

Race is not biological. It is a social concept used to categorize and separate people in order to benefit one group over another. There is no "white race" or "black race". I'm gonna need receipts to see otherwise. Here are mine:

• Wikipedia's first line on Race : Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.
• Response from anthropologist Dr. Shea: An anthropologist who proposed using race as a serious way of describing human variability would be laughed out of the profession—not for reasons of political correctness, but because the idea displays a manifest ignorance of biology. More than 60 years ago, M. F. Ashley Montagu demolished the concept of “race” in his book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1945). Nevertheless, like many a bad idea, the notion persists that there is some useful purpose in classifying humanity into five, six or a dozen races.
• PBS even has a nifty interactive learning webpag about Race
• AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race (Published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 101, pp 569-570, 1996): These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The expression of prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being, but it does involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is psychologically distressing and socially damaging. Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends.
• Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans(Article) : "Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," says Templeton. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity."

I got more if you need it. As well as some books on the subject.

Now ethnicity, genetic variations, etc. THAT is biological. But someone's ethnicity isn't black, white, or asian.

Of course YOU don't care if black folks wear your clothes(also please define white people clothes?? The GAP??), the history of the action is different. Like you said your white European, so of course there is going to be difference. Now sometimes I do admit it does go overboard but there is a REAL issue/problem at work. The main thing is "white's making it right". A black person does something and its ghetto, ugly, stupid, etc. But when a white person does it its edgy, urban, cool, etc. Even if that something is the same thing! Its this double standard that I take issue with.

Also I did know about the pink for boys and blue for girls thing!! When I first heard that I was amazed at how easily it was changed. :laugh:

Anyanwu wrote: *stuff*

thank you. I wanted to say this but was too tired and lazy to cite sources.

Also I did know about the pink for boys and blue for girls thing!! When I first heard that I was amazed at how easily it was changed. :laugh:

Want a trip? Girl has only meant female for a few hundred years.

Anyanwu wrote:

ren wrote:

Anyanwu wrote: I don't think its the same thing? Sex is a biological thing while race is socially constructed. Also sex has a "gender" construct on top of it (Girls like pink Boys like blue nonsense), which I think is another problem to add to the mix.

Race is a very biological thing I'm afarid. It's the new feminist definition of "gender" that says it is constructed. Personally I also think that we have more sex-based social attitudes than we have racial ones.... Then again there seems to be some sort whole "black culture" and misappropriation of culture thing goinmg on around some circles... Personally I don't really care when black people wear "white people" clothes (rofl), I'm white european, the wife is black african, and we both think it's all a load of bollocks.
funny trivia: Before pink was marketed for girls (an now women) it was a boy colour. It was seen as softer (for babies) than red (blood/men). Girls would be dressed in blue, seen as a proper soft colour. If you add certain biological facts to the equation it makes the whole thing even more hilarious. I think the current reason behind all the "pink" marketing efforts is to create a false sense of girl power whilst making sure parents have to pay again for what the bigger brother already had and stopped using.

Race is not biological. It is a social concept used to categorize and separate people in order to benefit one group over another. There is no "white race" or "black race". I'm gonna need receipts to see otherwise. Here are mine:

• Wikipedia's first line on Race : Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.
• Response from anthropologist Dr. Shea: An anthropologist who proposed using race as a serious way of describing human variability would be laughed out of the profession—not for reasons of political correctness, but because the idea displays a manifest ignorance of biology. More than 60 years ago, M. F. Ashley Montagu demolished the concept of “race” in his book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1945). Nevertheless, like many a bad idea, the notion persists that there is some useful purpose in classifying humanity into five, six or a dozen races.
• PBS even has a nifty interactive learning webpag about Race
• AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race (Published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 101, pp 569-570, 1996): These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The expression of prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being, but it does involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is psychologically distressing and socially damaging. Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends.
• Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans(Article) : "Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," says Templeton. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity."

I got more if you need it. As well as some books on the subject.

Now ethnicity, genetic variations, etc. THAT is biological. But someone's ethnicity isn't black, white, or asian.

Of course YOU don't care if black folks wear your clothes(also please define white people clothes?? The GAP??), the history of the action is different. Like you said your white European, so of course there is going to be difference. Now sometimes I do admit it does go overboard but there is a REAL issue/problem at work. The main thing is "white's making it right". A black person does something and its ghetto, ugly, stupid, etc. But when a white person does it its edgy, urban, cool, etc. Even if that something is the same thing! Its this double standard that I take issue with.

Also I did know about the pink for boys and blue for girls thing!! When I first heard that I was amazed at how easily it was changed. :laugh:

Well, all the politics behind the word are nice... But let's be frank. A frog with a tiny white spot on its back and another identical frog without a tiny white spot on its back are different species for some reason. The day no-one can find a white-spotted frog is "oh noes another species has gone extinct".

I guess you're from another place, but here my child is "mixed race". We have geneticists talking about race and why it is mixed race people seem to be doing so much better than everyone else, etc.

Similarly I have never encountered the attitude you deplore. My wife has never been in a ghetto, said to be from a ghetto, or in some other way ghetto-like. Similarly, although I was born and spent my childhood in/around a large city, and have worked with bleeding edge technology, I have never I think been referred to as edgy or urban. What you are talking about seems to be american fashion and those "oh look at me I'm being an individual and expressing myself by doing the same stuff millions of others do" subcultures.

regarding "white people clothes", I was I believe making a reference to another thread we had going on here not so long ago, about cultural misappropriations and such. Someone was explaining that it's rude to wear native american feather hats if you're not native american. i don't think so. They can wear the stuff my ancestors invented if they want and I can wear their ancestors stuff if I want. I don't see why there should be a problem, and quite frankly this whole "copyright" of culture some people want to link to race (or ethnicity or whatever you want to call it) is incredibly distasteful. As in: the nazis did it first by linking Judaism and genetics kind of distasteful.

Anyway, overall I like this:



Brenna:

It hasn't been properly studied. One study I know of involved post-menopausal women, 3/4 of whom had a condition.... The vast majority of breast cancers appear in the 50's and could indeed be caused by many things. What if the populations of women who didn't wear a bra and didn't get cancer also didn't take the pill? etc. To investigate bras would require a study that observes women from puberty to their 60's to get an accurate picture, so we're talking about a 50 year long study. I don't know there's ever been such a study. The estrogen level thing could be related as well, the pill as previously mentioned does contain it... And something people seem to often forget is that it's a steroid, probably not a good idea to take the stuff every day, which also has a long documented history of pretty much making every potential health issue worse (with one exception being cancer, apparently the pill helps with that).

regarding your example I'm sorry if I extrapolated without explaining, I'd been reading about a similar issue in Saudi Arabia, where the women there demanded to be seen by all-female staff. In your example if I remember correctly it's only once the staff was female that it became OK to do those health checks, sounds to me like they weren't OK with taking their kit off in front of people unless those people were other women....
Therefore disrespecting the male doctor (or nurse or radiographer, etc) by judging them on the basis of their sex and not their medical expertise.

I don't know why there is a difference in retirement age between men and women in the UK, however there are plans to change this and if they go ahead we should have parity in 2020.... Though those plans also seem to want me to work until I'm 68 or 69 to become eligible for state pension, I certainly am glad to have shiny yellow metal to fall back on. Ah and the UK's probably going to leave the EU too. Oh and many people can't retire on state pension and have to keep on working in order to survive anyway. But still, it's the principle of the thing

ren wrote: Well, all the politics behind the word are nice... But let's be frank. A frog with a tiny white spot on its back and another identical frog without a tiny white spot on its back are different species for some reason.

...until you realize that the tiny white spot doesn't necessitate it being a separate species.

For example, let's look at dogs. All domestic dogs are Canis lupus familiaris. All domestic dog breeds, from the large to the small, from Great Danes to Scottish Terriers, are the same species. Now, one could argue that "fine, fine, but the RACE is the human version of a dog breed!"

Except that's not really accurate, either, since many dog breeds come in multiple genetic variations, including coat color, coat markings, eye color, and other characteristics.

So, really, human "races" are equivalent to different colors of Chow, since we're overwhelmingly identical in genotype, and closer in phenotype than any two dog breeds.

well dog breeds are completely artificially created. If you want to compare dog species you'll have to look at , well the species.... Which are all various wolves, jackal, etc.

the so-called breeds are a recent invention and consist of inbred dogs; deformed mutants, created for the purpose of pleasing someone.

Why is it, when it comes to humans, we classify every single modern one as H.sapiens, and all other species in our genus (homo) are our ancestors, (and extinct)? Seriously do we classify any other species in this manner?

ren wrote: well dog breeds are completely artificially created. If you want to compare dog species you'll have to look at , well the species.... Which are all various wolves, jackal, etc.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We aren't talking about species here. You think we are, but scientifically speaking, we're not. "Race", as in, "grouping of people based on ethnic or geographic origin, as distinguished by sundry slight physical differences", is not species because we're all Homo sapiens sapiens, no matter what color or shape. Your argument that race is a scientific division has merit only when discussing a anthropology, which (in case you need reminding) is a social science.

'Race' as a social construct is certainly a 'thing'. People have created a difference between groups based on arbitrary physical characteristics. Some people then choose to let these social constructs determine how they behave.

That being said, we live in a physical world. We distinguish things by how they are different, not by how they are the same. We divide things into categories and sub categories. We continue to slice the tiniest groups into smaller and smaller groups. It's what humans do.

I'm not saying that race should be recognized as a biological difference because it is not, but instead that perhaps there is something biological in us that creates the need for us to divide people into 'races'. The same thing that could make women uncomfortable to be seen by a male doctor. Or the thing that makes a small child curious about the first time they meet someone of a different ethnicity. Is it learned, or built in? I don't know. I'm clearly not a biologist or a sociologist.

I have no idea what this 'thing' in us is, but it seems like humans have a tendency fixate on differences rather than similarities. A society that places higher importance on the difference between men and women will likely have more need for female-only or male-only alternatives in health care.