Most women, about 80%, get some form of postpartum depression after giving birth. However, science is discovering that fathers can experince the 'baby blues' as well. Most physicans, being as there only about 4 % of fathers with postpartum, are still unfimiliar with how and why this can affect men as well. Doctors believe some of the depression can come from fear of not being able to provide for the child and the life altering process of having a child in itself.
And unlike women, men are less likely to express their emotions or reach out for help if dealing with depression, becoming problematic in diagnosing and treating postpartum in fathers. However, the depression isn't just social pressures; fatherhood, like motherhood, has its own biololgy and can alter the brain. In recent studies, new fathers experinced an increase in the hormone vasopressin, which promotes paretnal behaviors in adults. Another factor in experincing postpartum is being with a woman who is going through this depression as well- men with parteners who had a more severe form of the depression were two and a half times more likely to become depressed than a man whose partener wasnt depressed.
I think it is very sad that men experince postpartum too. It is especially sad that since it is not normal, people may not take it seriously when it should be taken very seriously with whomever has it, man or woman. It doesn't surprise me that men can get it as well, because although they don't give birth, they helped make the baby and are therefore going to be strongly attached to the child. I think soceity needs to stop putting so much pressure on men to be 'strong' and 'manly' and not express how they feel because if they don't, depression can lead to loss of life.
Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/health/08mind.html?_r=1&ref=health
Monday, December 7, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Adam Lambert's Album Sales Soar Despite Contreversy
Adam Lambert, runner up in last season's "American Idol" recently was the subject of critism because of his sexually provacitive performance at the American Music Awards Sunday night, where he simulated sexual activities, and then kissed the keyboardist of his band. However, his album is the fifth most downloaded on iTunes, and the ninth most purchased on Amazon.com. ABC, the network which aired the show and recieved over 1500 complaints after the performace, cancelled Lambert's follow up performace on "Good Morning America". But the CBS "Early Show" picked him up instead where he performed two songs, was interviewed, and took questions from the crowd.
Lambert told CBS that he thinks many people got offended by his performance at the AMA's because he is a gay man. Although he admitted to being risque and understood why some might be offended, he didn't apologize for his provactive performance, claiming that was his creative interpretation of the song, and that he wanted to have fun with it.
I find anybody that found his performance to be provacitive to be a hypocrite. The media is completely saturated with male hetrosexuality, but if a gay man wants to express himself, all of a sudden its a huge problem. This, among other things, shows how homophobic America still is as a whole, and that America needs to learn to accept all types of sexuality, not just heterosexuality.
For example, every year on cable TV, the "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show" is aired, where skinny women with large boobs prance around in tiny flamboyant undergarments for the world to admire, in particular the American heterosexual man. This is apparently ok, but a gay man expressing himself and kissing another man is 'offensive'.
Despite this, the fact that Lambert's album is selling like hotcakes shows that there are a good percentage of people out there who believe in the idea of embracing yourself and your sexuality. It is good that many people support Lambert's openness about his sexuality and his music, or don't care about his sexuality enough to let it affect their taste in music. Whether some are advocates for Lambert's behavior, or just like his music, it shows that homophobia is becoming less prevelent in today's society, although the complaints show it isn't yet dead and gone.
I say, get off your high horse, homophobes, and kudos to Adam Lambert and everyone else who believes and supports embracing, loving and expressing your sexuality, and yourself.
Here is the article link: http://cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/27/adam.lambert.album/index.html
Lambert told CBS that he thinks many people got offended by his performance at the AMA's because he is a gay man. Although he admitted to being risque and understood why some might be offended, he didn't apologize for his provactive performance, claiming that was his creative interpretation of the song, and that he wanted to have fun with it.
I find anybody that found his performance to be provacitive to be a hypocrite. The media is completely saturated with male hetrosexuality, but if a gay man wants to express himself, all of a sudden its a huge problem. This, among other things, shows how homophobic America still is as a whole, and that America needs to learn to accept all types of sexuality, not just heterosexuality.
For example, every year on cable TV, the "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show" is aired, where skinny women with large boobs prance around in tiny flamboyant undergarments for the world to admire, in particular the American heterosexual man. This is apparently ok, but a gay man expressing himself and kissing another man is 'offensive'.
Despite this, the fact that Lambert's album is selling like hotcakes shows that there are a good percentage of people out there who believe in the idea of embracing yourself and your sexuality. It is good that many people support Lambert's openness about his sexuality and his music, or don't care about his sexuality enough to let it affect their taste in music. Whether some are advocates for Lambert's behavior, or just like his music, it shows that homophobia is becoming less prevelent in today's society, although the complaints show it isn't yet dead and gone.
I say, get off your high horse, homophobes, and kudos to Adam Lambert and everyone else who believes and supports embracing, loving and expressing your sexuality, and yourself.
Here is the article link: http://cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/27/adam.lambert.album/index.html
China Plans to 'Lower' Emissions
The Chinese government has planned to slow its emissions rate by 2020, joining President Obama who set a prvoisional target for lowering U.S emissions. This is ironic considering China has often been resistant to slow down their emissions rate, arguing its nessecity in order for them to build their industry and economy, and as of two years ago surpassed the USA as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet. Some think this annoucement was not conicedental to Obama's, although the Chinese were planning on attending a enviromental conference on climate change in Copenhagen next month. But the Chinese have always been less enthusiastic about enviormental protection, as their government seems to agree as a whole that economic growth is more important, while in the USA their is much debate over the issue.
Although the Chinese proposal claims to reduce its emissions, what it is really doing is increasing them at a slower rate than the 2005 levels. I believe the Chinese are using this proposal as a front to continue their industrial and economic growth without offending the senisbility of other developed nations. They want to keep growing but don't want to be hindered by climate and greenhouse issues, hence they put forth this 'proposal' to appeal to the enviromentaly conscious without having to slow down their prosperity.
Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/science/earth/27climate.html?_r=1&ref=science
Although the Chinese proposal claims to reduce its emissions, what it is really doing is increasing them at a slower rate than the 2005 levels. I believe the Chinese are using this proposal as a front to continue their industrial and economic growth without offending the senisbility of other developed nations. They want to keep growing but don't want to be hindered by climate and greenhouse issues, hence they put forth this 'proposal' to appeal to the enviromentaly conscious without having to slow down their prosperity.
Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/science/earth/27climate.html?_r=1&ref=science
Monday, November 16, 2009
Prisoners in Connecticut Receiving College Education
Wesleyan University, one of the more selective colleges in the Northeast, has started a new program that offers inmates in the high security Chesire Correctional Institution the oppurtunity for an elite higher education. Although other colleges such as Boston University have had similar programs, Wesleyan University has taken their program to the next level; the course is very academically rigorous, and it doesn't turn any prisoner away based on their crime, no matter how henoius. As of now, the university is conducting this program as an experiment, selecting only 20 out of the 120 that applied for this oppurtunity. On Wednsdays, students who live on campus come to the prison for joint discussion groups with the inmates. However, since many of the men in the prison class are made up for serious offenders, including murder and kidnapping, many of them are in jail for life and won't get to use their college credits for a career, but the ones that do get released will be able to use their credits. And although this program has taken this pre exsisting idea to new heights, it comes as no surprise considering Wesleyan University's history of community interaction and its Methodist roots, named after founder John Wesleyan. Their education is being sponsered financially by the Bard Prison Intitiative, who gave Wesleyan Univeristy 300,000 dollars for the program, and is being financed by them for the next two years in full, and the two after that partially.
I think this is a very interesting social experiment and it gives the prisoners a chance to learn and take full advantage of a higher education oppurtunity. However, I wonder who is going to pay for their education after the Bard Prison Intitivative stops giving Wesleyan University the money to sponsor it. It is ironic that in prison, these men come upon oppurtunities that might have never had if they stayed out of jail. So in that respect, it doesn't really help the kids on the streets who think it's ok to do bad things because hay, if they go to jail, they might get a free education too. But I do think for some of the prisoners that will be released, this a great oppurtunity to make something of their lives, and hopefully they won't continue in their previous behavior.
The article is on newyorktimes.com
I think this is a very interesting social experiment and it gives the prisoners a chance to learn and take full advantage of a higher education oppurtunity. However, I wonder who is going to pay for their education after the Bard Prison Intitivative stops giving Wesleyan University the money to sponsor it. It is ironic that in prison, these men come upon oppurtunities that might have never had if they stayed out of jail. So in that respect, it doesn't really help the kids on the streets who think it's ok to do bad things because hay, if they go to jail, they might get a free education too. But I do think for some of the prisoners that will be released, this a great oppurtunity to make something of their lives, and hopefully they won't continue in their previous behavior.
The article is on newyorktimes.com
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Pelosi Gives In on Strong Abortion Stance
Nancy Pelosi, our country's first female House Speaker and a defender of abortion, had to give in to fellow Democrats opposed to abortion and allow tight restrictions on insurance money that women can use to have abortions. The restrictions were nessecary in order to get support for the bill overall; however, it is not without qualms that this part of the bill should stand. Representative Diana DeGette, D. of Colorado, left Pelosi's office Friday very upset, calling this the biggest restriction on a woman's right to choose in her career. Democrat of Connetnicut Rosa Delora agreed, saying it "invades women's personal desicions". However, both said they would vote for the health care bill and fight for changes later on in the bill process. Democrats have fought internally over abortion since the 1980's, and now a more conservative anti abortion majority sits in the Democratic party.
I find it very strange that Democrats would be anti-abortion, because Democrats are supposed to be more liberal. However, both Democrats and Republicans are politicans; they all want power, they just target different groups of people to get it. This fight just goes to show that there is still a lot of sexism in American society, and it cuts across all political afflilations. Pelosi butted heads the most with Democrat Bart Stupak, a leader in the anti-abortion party. These types of men, and a few women who serve as male mouthpieces, such as Sarah Palin, have a tendency to think that they can control what a woman should do with her body, thereby still having the upper hand over the female sex. Unfortunately, I believe there will never be full equality between the sexes; men have always been thought of as better than women throughout history and despite some changes, I think that underlying attitude is still alive and well today.
Here is the article: http://nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08scene.html?_r=1&hp
I find it very strange that Democrats would be anti-abortion, because Democrats are supposed to be more liberal. However, both Democrats and Republicans are politicans; they all want power, they just target different groups of people to get it. This fight just goes to show that there is still a lot of sexism in American society, and it cuts across all political afflilations. Pelosi butted heads the most with Democrat Bart Stupak, a leader in the anti-abortion party. These types of men, and a few women who serve as male mouthpieces, such as Sarah Palin, have a tendency to think that they can control what a woman should do with her body, thereby still having the upper hand over the female sex. Unfortunately, I believe there will never be full equality between the sexes; men have always been thought of as better than women throughout history and despite some changes, I think that underlying attitude is still alive and well today.
Here is the article: http://nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08scene.html?_r=1&hp
Monday, October 26, 2009
Fighting HIV/AIDS One Community at a Time
Government health officails are undertaking a bold new strategy, 'test and treat', to stop the spread of AIDS by testing almost all the adults in a specific community and treating the infected. The three year study is focusing on two communties affected by AIDS; the District of Columbia and the Bronx. The purpose of the study is to test whether or not it can work in treating the disease on a national level.
As many as five percent of the people in D.C are living with AIDS, a rate paralleled to that of West Africa, and as many as half who are infected are unaware of it. Nationally, about a quater of those infected are unaware of it. However, the hardest part, according to Angela Fulwood Wood, deputy director of Family and Medical Counseling Service, is getting those who are found positive to recieve medical attention. In 2006, only half of the D.C residents newly diagonsed with AIDS recieved medical treatment for the virus within six months.
Researchers are currently meeting with health officails and medical experts in D.C. and the Bronx to make HIV testing a standardized part of routine doctors visits, clinics, and ER's. Some doctors, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have suggested having testing areas set up at non medical locations, such as WalMart.
The 'test and treat' study is just one step towards the overall goal of using medicines to prevent HIV. Medicines can also reduce the level of the virus in the blood of those already infected.
I think this 'test and treat' study is a step in the right direction towards preventing, treating, and ultimately curing the AIDS epidemic. It is high time that the government undertake this medical predictament and help the victims of the disease. I think having testing booths set up at places like WalMart is a good idea in theory, but people may be embarassed to be tested in such a public setting. However, this feeling is caused by how our society views people with AIDS; namely, they are often outcasts and treated as though they should be seperated a safe distance away from the uninfected. Although I understand where this fear might orginate, it is important to educate the public more throughly on AIDS, so that getting tested will be more routine to the upcoming generation rather than an embarassment. Also, talking to schoolchildren, especially in areas where AIDS is most prevalent, about prevention methods, i.e. condoms and birth control pills, is probably one of the most important steps the government can take towards making AIDS a thing of the past.
Here is the article:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27hiv.html?hp
As many as five percent of the people in D.C are living with AIDS, a rate paralleled to that of West Africa, and as many as half who are infected are unaware of it. Nationally, about a quater of those infected are unaware of it. However, the hardest part, according to Angela Fulwood Wood, deputy director of Family and Medical Counseling Service, is getting those who are found positive to recieve medical attention. In 2006, only half of the D.C residents newly diagonsed with AIDS recieved medical treatment for the virus within six months.
Researchers are currently meeting with health officails and medical experts in D.C. and the Bronx to make HIV testing a standardized part of routine doctors visits, clinics, and ER's. Some doctors, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have suggested having testing areas set up at non medical locations, such as WalMart.
The 'test and treat' study is just one step towards the overall goal of using medicines to prevent HIV. Medicines can also reduce the level of the virus in the blood of those already infected.
I think this 'test and treat' study is a step in the right direction towards preventing, treating, and ultimately curing the AIDS epidemic. It is high time that the government undertake this medical predictament and help the victims of the disease. I think having testing booths set up at places like WalMart is a good idea in theory, but people may be embarassed to be tested in such a public setting. However, this feeling is caused by how our society views people with AIDS; namely, they are often outcasts and treated as though they should be seperated a safe distance away from the uninfected. Although I understand where this fear might orginate, it is important to educate the public more throughly on AIDS, so that getting tested will be more routine to the upcoming generation rather than an embarassment. Also, talking to schoolchildren, especially in areas where AIDS is most prevalent, about prevention methods, i.e. condoms and birth control pills, is probably one of the most important steps the government can take towards making AIDS a thing of the past.
Here is the article:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27hiv.html?hp
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Nurse Encourages Suicides Via Chatroom
A nurse from Minneapolis, William Melchert-Dinkel, is accused of going in chat rooms on the Internet, and pursuading depressed people to kill themselves. He is currently being investigated for two deaths, pushing the limits of the First Amendment. Investgators said the nurse drew the people in through fake compassion and then offered step by step instructions on how to commit suicide. Legal experts say the prosecution in this case will have a difficult time framing Melchert-Dinkel, as he did not physically kill anybody. He seemed to express no remorse, stating he has "moved on" with his life. The Minnesota Board of Nursing revoked his lisecene and revealed that Melchert-Dinkel confided to a fellow nurse that his profession honed his knowledge of how to effectively commit suicide.
Although I think this guy is a bad person and should have his liscene permantely revoked, he can't be charged with murder, as he himself did not physically kill anybody. However, he might he charged with conspiring to kill someone, as he had a hand in someone's death. The First Amendment, which reads- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"- does not exactly address this particular issue. However, he should be reprimanded in some way, and should never be allowed to work in a hospital again. I think a good punishment would be to have to face the families of the deceased, and tell them what he did and why he did it. This is better than jail, because it will humiliate him and hopefully instill some much needed shame for his actions.
Here is the article:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/18suicides.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Although I think this guy is a bad person and should have his liscene permantely revoked, he can't be charged with murder, as he himself did not physically kill anybody. However, he might he charged with conspiring to kill someone, as he had a hand in someone's death. The First Amendment, which reads- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"- does not exactly address this particular issue. However, he should be reprimanded in some way, and should never be allowed to work in a hospital again. I think a good punishment would be to have to face the families of the deceased, and tell them what he did and why he did it. This is better than jail, because it will humiliate him and hopefully instill some much needed shame for his actions.
Here is the article:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/18suicides.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
