Checking in... Anxiety about current events

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

But how do you that in a two party system like ours unless you are a single issue voter?

That's a good question. I suppose you can vote locally more on policy, and you can raise awareness. I suppose you have to lobby people, lol. 

[Not_a_Number]

24 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think locally it is even more difficult because some local candidates don't even have opponents. 

Well, that seems like a real problem 😛 

[MercyA]

.

Edited January 18, 2021 by MercyA

[Terabith]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think locally it is even more difficult because some local candidates don't even have opponents. 

Maybe you should run?

[Frances]

4 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

People should pay a lot more attention to local races. The policy enacted by local officials often has a much greater impact on our day to day lives than the big single issues like abortion, etc. There are recent examples of very disciplined groups of voters taking over local government entities like school boards because voter turn-out is so low for those elections. People realized that their school board is cutting out pages of the high school biology text that discusses reproduction or suing for the right to teach creationism and discover that it's important to vote in local elections. Both of those cases motivated voters to vote out their school board. 

Nm

 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Frances

[Jean in Newcastle]

4 minutes ago, kand said:

I may be younger than you 😉. Nixon was before my time. And obviously he isn’t a good example of a typical president giving that he had to resign.  Anyway, I think that’s taking my point too literally. If you think Trump is not a severe aberration, we’re not going to agree and it supports the talking points of those who say it’s just always like this and people just don’t like him because he’s not on their side. 
 

To the second bolded, I can see how that’s probably largely true, but it doesn’t hold true at all for me, so I don’t tend to think that way. I vote very much candidate by candidate, and I definitely don’t drive a car that people like me drive 😬. 

I agree with you and I am not too young to remember Nixon.  Politics has always been "politics" and has always attracted people who want power and at times have misused it.  It is, after all, why we have checks and balances built into our system.  But until now everyone followed those checks and balances.  They might have challenged them to some degree but even Nixon resigned rather than try to overthrow those checks and balances.  That's the dangerous difference that I see with Trump. 

[lewelma]

7 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yes but not Kamala because there’s not another Harris in politics that I know of.  Not blaming you at all because I think most people refer to her by Kamala and possibly if you said Harris we would have had to think about what you meant.  

We have had 3 female prime ministers in the last 24 years.  In my experience they are called in casual conversation: Shipley, Helen Clark, and Jacinda.

Jenny Shipley has a very common first name, so is called Shipley

Helen Clark has a common first and last name, so is called Helen Clark. Plus, Clark can be a male first name (and is actually Jacinda's partner's name).

Jacinda Ardern has a uncommon both first and last names, and is known as Jacinda in casual conversation, but Ardern in the press. People might have started calling her, Jacinda, when the press named her meteoric rise "Jacindamania."

As for our one male PM in the past 24 years: John Key is typically called John Key, not John or Key. John is common, and Key is short so easily misheard. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by lewelma

[Carrie12345]

19 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

Finland doesn't exist?   

I haven't heard of even half of those. 

That one is brand new to me! I wonder how I should break the news to my family... here and in Finland, lol. Do we re-label our tree? I HAVE had difficulty getting past the late 1800s... hmm.
 

[Carrie12345]

I think names can be both overthought *and carry bias, lol.

I know that, when I’m in a teaching role, I prefer to be called Mrs. Lastname, but I don’t require it. Most of the students I’ve had have been through multi-layered relationships where using my first name seemed more natural. For some, especially younger students, Miss Firstname was more in line with their family culture and experience.   But I did have ONE student who used my first name in a way that made me very uncomfortable. It had much more to do with overall demeanor than the name itself.

Intent matters, but then some of us just pick up on most common use without being conscious of original intent.

I happen to like using Kamala in casual speech so people can quit pretending they can never remember how to pronounce it.

[Ausmumof3]

2 hours ago, lewelma said:

We have had 3 female prime ministers in the last 24 years.  In my experience they are called in casual conversation: Shipley, Helen Clark, and Jacinda.

Jenny Shipley has a very common first name, so is called Shipley

Helen Clark has a common first and last name, so is called Helen Clark. Plus, Clark can be a male first name (and is actually Jacinda's partner's name).

Jacinda Ardern has a uncommon both first and last names, and is known as Jacinda in casual conversation, but Ardern in the press. People might have started calling her, Jacinda, when the press named her meteoric rise "Jacindamania."

As for our one male PM in the past 24 years: John Key is typically called John Key, not John or Key. John is common, and Key is short so easily misheard. 

Hmm maybe that explains it.  Harris is a fairly common name whereas Kamala is quite distinctive.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I think names can be both overthought *and carry bias, lol.

I know that, when I’m in a teaching role, I prefer to be called Mrs. Lastname, but I don’t require it. Most of the students I’ve had have been through multi-layered relationships where using my first name seemed more natural. For some, especially younger students, Miss Firstname was more in line with their family culture and experience.   But I did have ONE student who used my first name in a way that made me very uncomfortable. It had much more to do with overall demeanor than the name itself.

Intent matters, but then some of us just pick up on most common use without being conscious of original intent.

I happen to like using Kamala in casual speech so people can quit pretending they can never remember how to pronounce it.

My boss calls me by the diminutive form of my name, and I think it is an intentional way to “minimize” me. (I.e., he calls me “Dani”) I do not think he decided to do this in a conscious power play, but I think that is the subconscious reason. I am not hugely bothered by it, and I suppose I could always have insisted on not being nicknamed, but I do think there is an actual *purpose* in using the nickname, whether consciously done or subconscious. 

[Katy]

11 minutes ago, Quill said:

My boss calls me by the diminutive form of my name, and I think it is an intentional way to “minimize” me. (I.e., he calls me “Dani”) I do not think he decided to do this in a conscious power play, but I think that is the subconscious reason. I am not hugely bothered by it, and I suppose I could always have insisted on not being nicknamed, but I do think there is an actual *purpose* in using the nickname, whether consciously done or subconscious. 

Huh. I’d assume he likes you and wants familiarity to encourage you to stay longer. Does he minimize you in other ways?

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

My boss calls me by the diminutive form of my name, and I think it is an intentional way to “minimize” me. (I.e., he calls me “Dani”) I do not think he decided to do this in a conscious power play, but I think that is the subconscious reason. I am not hugely bothered by it, and I suppose I could always have insisted on not being nicknamed, but I do think there is an actual *purpose* in using the nickname, whether consciously done or subconscious. 

He chose that without asking you what you prefer? If so, that's not cool. I'm one of those who vastly prefers casualness to formality, and I tend to give most people the benefit of the doubt and so would tend toward assuming what @Katysaid. But still . . . good manners are important, and he should have asked you what you prefer.

[Wheres Toto]

I allow my students to call me whatever they want.  The little guys tend to call me Miss Firstname, the older kids tend to avoid calling me anything at all until they know me better.   😁  I have two that call me "Mom" 😉, one that calls me "Miss Teacher Lady" (as a light-hearted joke), and a few who do call me Mrs. Lastname.   Quite a few of my newer students probably don't know my last name.  

My Freshman year of high school I had a Biology teacher who called me Dottie at orientation and I didn't realize he was talking to me.  I don't think I've ever had anyone else call me a nickname at first meeting.  My mother calls me Dottie but since I didn't know who else was in the class and there could have been someone else with the name Dottie, it didn't occur to me to answer until he also used my last name.   I don't like any of the nicknames for my name, but I do tend to like nicknames for my kids and other people. 

[brehon]

12 hours ago, Plum said:

Molly Ivins has another quote I like. 

“When politicians start talking about large groups of their fellow Americans as 'enemies,' it's time for a quiet stir of alertness. Polarizing people is a good way to win an election, and also a good way to wreck a country.”

Thanks for catching my misspelling of her name. Ugh! I knew it didn’t look right but was too tired to look it up.

That quote is spot on. 

She really did have a way with words and knew how to express profound thoughts in a way everyone could understand. 

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

He chose that without asking you what you prefer? If so, that's not cool. I'm one of those who vastly prefers casualness to formality, and I tend to give most people the benefit of the doubt and so would tend toward assuming what @Katysaid. But still . . . good manners are important, and he should have asked you what you prefer.

He did ask if he could call me Dani. I could have said, “No I prefer that you use my formal name.” However, it was my first or second day of work and I was keen not to be difficult or reject an attempt at increasing familiarity. He did ask me to call him by his first name, which is an already-casual name (think a name like Toby), so I guess that was his first effort to de-formalize our interactions. 
He does seem to hold gender stereotypes, though; that’s why I think he wanted to “minimize” me. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

Huh. I’d assume he likes you and wants familiarity to encourage you to stay longer. Does he minimize you in other ways?

He definitely wants familiarity; I can assume that from him asking me to call him by his casual first name. 
I am thinking about your second question...I think the answer is No, but I do get a strong vibe of gender stereotyping from him. For example, he was talking about an all-female firm where he said, “The bathroom was filthy...wouldn’t you think a firm full of females would keep the bathrooms clean?” And other similar things. He also tried out some racial stereotyping on me early on but I shut it down. We had a pretty significant argument over that. 

[OH_Homeschooler]

On 1/16/2021 at 12:00 AM, wathe said:

 I'll duck the rotten tomatoes and say that I am not at all surprised.  There is a lot of overlap between chiropractic and woo.  I would not conflate a chiropractic education with a necessarily scientific one.  To be fair, it's a profession that has seen a lot change in the past 15 years or so, with a move toward evidence-based practice.  There is good evidence for chiropractic management of low back pain, for example.  But lots of (maybe even most) chiro practices here are still firmly in the alt. med sphere, selling a wellness-cult flavored product that is pseudoscientific at best, and absolutely compatible with conspiracy theory belief.

See, I live near the first chiropractic school in the nation (acceptance rate-100%) and I see a lot of this too. There are a lot of chiropractors here as well, which I suppose makes sense as many of them settle here after school. A former co-worker of mine once mentioned taking her DOG to the chiropractor, I don't know how common dog chiropractors are in other places but I'd never heard of that before.

One thing that I find troubling is how many chiros are aligned with MLMs around here. I drive by their offices and they are all advertising some essential oil MLM or other health-ish companies. Definitely a huge turn-off. And I believe there is probably a wide range in what they believe and espouse, but when my one former FB chiro friend was so rabidly anti-vax and later anti-mask, I looked into it and yes, there are too many chiros who are into woo for my taste. Again, maybe it's not all of them but enough to turn me off of the profession altogether.  

Edited January 18, 2021 by OH_Homeschooler

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

He did ask if he could call me Dani. I could have said, “No I prefer that you use my formal name.” However, it was my first or second day of work and I was keen not to be difficult or reject an attempt at increasing familiarity. He did ask me to call him by his first name, which is an already-casual name (think a name like Toby), so I guess that was his first effort to de-formalize our interactions. 
He does seem to hold gender stereotypes, though; that’s why I think he wanted to “minimize” me. 

Given a chance to think about it, maybe "Danielle is fine" would work.

In the adult work environment, IME (midwest US) it's almost always been first name, both to bosses and subordinates, except when the boss is from a different culture where first name is disrespectful.  People with obvious nicknames would be called by their obvious nickname, if OK with them.  For example, Bill or Jeff.  When not sure, I would say "do you prefer to be called Robert or Bob or [silence for them to fill in]?"

My mom named me a name with the intention of not saddling me with an annoying nickname, LOL.  At work, it is effective.  Growing up, people just added "eee" to the end of my boring name.

[SKL]

As far as chiros go, I'm sure there is a range, as is also true of MDs.

I go by my personal / family experience.  The chiro I go to gives us results, whereas our visits to MDs more often than not produce only a big bill and a dose of discomfort.  Of course we can always say no to any advice that sounds illogical to us.

I think that aside from individual differences, at least in the US, there are disincentives to MDs from spending time to get to know a patient.  Maybe this is different where you've had a chance to see the same MD over a course of years - I haven't had that chance, due to a high rate of turnover in every conventional practice I've used.

Besides that, in general, I prefer a non-chemical, non-intrusive approach to anything where that has a chance to work.  Meds tend to work against each other, leading MDs to prescribe more and more, with detrimental effects.  I prefer that meds or medical procedures be an option of last resort.

Before I started with our chiro about 8 years ago, I too thought chiro was woo or just for the skeleton.  I'm glad I got a referral for my kid and followed up on it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

5 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Nixon was not before my time but I don't remember him. My parents are old school Nixon haters. Family lore is that we took a tour of the White House around 1972 and Nixon came out to the meet the tour group and told my parents that I was cute (I would have been 2 at the time - dating myself here) and my parents were appalled. 

I hate using the "p word" but both of these responses are coming from a place of privilege. People for whom the system is designed to work, generally white middle class Americans, did not need to spend much time thinking about "politics." The system works for us because it's designed to work for us. The "politics" that we ignore have a much harsher impact on other Americans which meant they never had the luxury to ignore politics. To be clear, I'm not saying that you (or "we" because I'm very much like both of you) "ignore" politics. What I'm saying is that our 'relationship' (not sure if this is the best word) with our government entities is very different than what other groups experience. That 'relationship' with a government that is designed to work to benefit us leads us to have a very different view of politics than people from other groups of Americans. 

The American demographic with the highest state of political engagement is African American women. There's a reason for that. 

Same sex marriage has only been legally recognized in most states for less than 10 years. Mass incarceration of African American young men. Immigration issues. Policing issues. Until overturned by a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, there were states that criminalized homosexual activity. 2003! I could go on and on. 

I agree that Trump is an aberration but I don't believe that everything was "normal" before he came on the scene. He's a manifestation of something that was already there. 

Generalizing here but there is a Twitter thing (meme? sorry I'm old I don't know the right lingo) about "brunch." The idea that is that if Clinton had won, we would be at brunch instead of paying attention to politics. It's derogatory because it's basically a sneer that we weren't paying attention before. 

 

I honestly don’t know what your post means. Once I actually came to live in the US (which was well after the Nixon years) I was much more affected in my daily life by local politics. I would assume that is true for most people regardless of race, sexual orientation etc. I thought that we were primarily discussing the presidency?  

[Jean in Newcastle]

24 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

See, I live near the first chiropractic school in the nation and I see a lot of this too. There are a lot of chiropractors here as well, which I suppose makes sense as many of them settle here after school. A former co-worker of mine once mentioned taking her DOG to the chiropractor, I don't know how common dog chiropractors are in other places but I'd never heard of that before.

One thing that I find troubling is how many chiros are aligned with MLMs around here. I drive by their offices and they are all advertising some essential oil MLM or other health-ish companies. Definitely a huge turn-off. And I believe there is probably a wide range in what they believe and espouse, but when my one former FB chiro friend was so rabidly anti-vax and later anti-mask, I looked into it and yes, there are too many chiros who are into woo for my taste. Again, maybe it's not all of them but enough to turn me off of the profession altogether.  

Ok- you have opened a rabbit trail with dog chiropractors!  I took Libby the Disabled Wonder Dog (who had a spinal cord injury and had one leg paralyzed) to a dog chiropractor. He got her to the point where she could move her paralyzed leg from her shoulder where before she had no movement at all. It obviously wasn’t a placebo effect  since as a dog she had no biases about the effectiveness of his treatment (which was a combined of acupressure, laser light therapy and chiropractic adjustments). Giving her some mobility kept me from having to amputate her leg and gave her a potent weapon to kick me when she wanted attention!  

[katilac]

26 minutes ago, SKL said:

In the adult work environment, IME (midwest US) it's almost always been first name, both to bosses and subordinates, except when the boss is from a different culture where first name is disrespectful.  People with obvious nicknames would be called by their obvious nickname, if OK with them.  For example, Bill or Jeff.  When not sure, I would say "do you prefer to be called Robert or Bob or [silence for them to fill in]?".

First names has been my experience as well (deep south US), but we would go with the assumption that the person would introduce themselves with the name they wished to use. If they present themselves as William, we call them William. 

[Wheres Toto]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Given a chance to think about it, maybe "Danielle is fine" would work.

In the adult work environment, IME (midwest US) it's almost always been first name, both to bosses and subordinates, except when the boss is from a different culture where first name is disrespectful.  People with obvious nicknames would be called by their obvious nickname, if OK with them.  For example, Bill or Jeff.  When not sure, I would say "do you prefer to be called Robert or Bob or [silence for them to fill in]?"

My mom named me a name with the intention of not saddling me with an annoying nickname, LOL.  At work, it is effective.  Growing up, people just added "eee" to the end of my boring name.

I'm in the Northeast and everybody always just called everyone by first names, whether bosses or subordinates.  I can't really think of any exceptions.  

If I really didn't want to have someone use a nickname, I'd probably first try a lighthearted "Ha ha, you better stick with xxxxx or I might not realize you're talking to me!".

[Bootsie]

48 minutes ago, katilac said:

First names has been my experience as well (deep south US), but we would go with the assumption that the person would introduce themselves with the name they wished to use. If they present themselves as William, we call them William. 

Professionally, in the south I have experienced a difference of first name/last name among men and women.  DH and I have taught at the same university.  Many times I would be approached by a student, "Betty, Dr. Jones looked busy so I didn't want to disturb him... Do you know when he will be free?"   DH served as MBA director and then was followed by a female professor in that role.  She complained about how often she heard "Connie, when Dr. Jones was director he set up my degree plan..."  MBA students tended to be the worst about a female professor being addressed by the first name and the male professor being "Dr. LastName"--even when the male professor was not a PhD.  

Undergraduate students were more likely to say, "Miss Betty, when I had Dr. Jones as a professor..." or "Mrs. Smith, when I had Dr. Jones as a professor..." 

[Selkie]

4 hours ago, Quill said:

He did ask if he could call me Dani. I could have said, “No I prefer that you use my formal name.” However, it was my first or second day of work and I was keen not to be difficult or reject an attempt at increasing familiarity. He did ask me to call him by his first name, which is an already-casual name (think a name like Toby), so I guess that was his first effort to de-formalize our interactions. 
He does seem to hold gender stereotypes, though; that’s why I think he wanted to “minimize” me. 

Dani seems to be more common than Danielle where I live. All the Danielles I know call themselves Dani, so maybe he is just assuming that's what you go by. Not that that makes it okay - I would never use a nickname unless I was sure the person used it themselves - but maybe he's just clueless about such things.

[Jean in Newcastle]

5 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

The issues I mentioned are related to the presidency. Sodomy was criminalized in some states until it was overturned by the Supreme Court composed of justices appointed by the president. Obama was the first presidential candidate to favor same sex marriage and that was only in his second campaign, not his first. Anti-gay marriage initiatives were placed on the ballots in many states in 2004 with the intent of helping Bush win re-election. 

Mass incarceration is a federal issue as much a state issue. The 1994 crime bill, championed by President Clinton, bears much of the blame for mass incarceration. 

We heard many people insist, "this is not who we are" after January 6th but many other people, usually from marginalized groups, saw it very differently. 

Still not connected to the character of the president and how they work within the Constitution including checks and balances.  These are policy issues and obviously policy issues change along with the greater culture. 

[Sneezyone]

18 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Still not connected to the character of the president and how they work within the Constitution including checks and balances.  These are policy issues and obviously policy issues change along with the greater culture. 

If we have learned nothing else these last four years it’s that the president sets a tone that is replicated/followed locally by his/her party members. The last four years has been characterized by the nationalization of local races/positions in an unprecedented way. We have witnessed state and local officials abuse their authority to champion the cause of federal officials.

Edited January 18, 2021 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

57 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Professionally, in the south I have experienced a difference of first name/last name among men and women.  DH and I have taught at the same university.  Many times I would be approached by a student, "Betty, Dr. Jones looked busy so I didn't want to disturb him... Do you know when he will be free?"   DH served as MBA director and then was followed by a female professor in that role.  She complained about how often she heard "Connie, when Dr. Jones was director he set up my degree plan..."  MBA students tended to be the worst about a female professor being addressed by the first name and the male professor being "Dr. LastName"--even when the male professor was not a PhD.  

Undergraduate students were more likely to say, "Miss Betty, when I had Dr. Jones as a professor..." or "Mrs. Smith, when I had Dr. Jones as a professor..." 

I could never call my profs by first name.  There were some students who did it, but it would grate on me, like they were trying to pretend to be on a more friendly basis with the prof.  Even when I was actually on a friendly basis with the profs, I would call them Mr. / Ms. / Dr.

When I started my first volunteer tutoring gig in an elementary school, I was 17 (looked 15) and hadn't ever been called anything but my first name.  I started telling my students that they could call me by my first name, but the supervising teacher didn't allow it.  She said they must call me "Miss ___" as a matter of respect.

Edited January 18, 2021 by SKL

[katilac]

47 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Professionally, in the south I have experienced a difference of first name/last name among men and women.  DH and I have taught at the same university.  

A student isn't a work colleague, though. Professor X or Doctor X is the standard for what students use ime (Louisiana, Alabama, and, a very long time ago, Tennessee). I've never seen a student call a college professor by their first name without being invited to do so, and the vast majority won't do it even then, lol. The exception I have seen is the art department, where lots of professors go by First Name or Mr./Ms. First Name. 

The LA & AL experiences are undergrad; the TN was grad school but not MBA (and not recent). 

I would absolutely correct any student doing this. The professor or director of the program is the one in a position of power, so I don't understand why they would put up with it. How are the various professors introducing themselves? If they are introducing themselves as Dr. X and the student replies, it's nice to meet you, Connie - then the professor should politely correct them. If the student persists, the professor should clapback hard, imo. 

 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, katilac said:

I've never seen a student call a college professor by their first name without being invited to do so, and the vast majority won't do it even then, lol.

When I taught college kids in Texas, I did ask them to call me by my first name (I was in my 20s, lol — not that much older than them) and some weren’t super comfortable with that. 

In my experience, it does depend on the state culture. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

4 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives were put on the ballots in multiple states to help Bush's re-election chances. That's actually pretty bad. A ballot initiative to deny the civil rights of a minority group to help a candidate be re-elected is not good. 

Campaigning on being "tough" on crime when everyone knows what that is code for is a problem. The Willy Horton ads from 1988. Bill Clinton and Sister Souljah. Remember Anita Hill, "a little bit slutty and a little bit nutty." Why don't we see those things as "character" issues? Bill Clinton and the "bimbo eruptions?" I'm not referring to his indiscretions but rather how they were described at the time. Reagan and "welfare queens." 

I think we're talking past each other here. 

 

I think that we are.  I was just agreeing with a number of people that the last 4 years have been different in a much worse way but that that there has always been an element of this.  Which your examples point out. 

[wathe]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Ok- you have opened a rabbit trail with dog chiropractors!  I took Libby the Disabled Wonder Dog (who had a spinal cord injury and had one leg paralyzed) to a dog chiropractor. He got her to the point where she could move her paralyzed leg from her shoulder where before she had no movement at all. It obviously wasn’t a placebo effect  since as a dog she had no biases about the effectiveness of his treatment (which was a combined of acupressure, laser light therapy and chiropractic adjustments). Giving her some mobility kept me from having to amputate her leg and gave her a potent weapon to kick me when she wanted attention!  

Right.  Mechanical manipulation of bones and joints can be effective for many mechanical disorders of bones and joints.  That's where the evidence supports chiropractic treatment, and that's within legitimate evidence-based scope of chiropractic practice.  

(Unfortunately, many chiros don't stop there.  Patients who are attracted to "chemical-free" treatment gravitate to these chiros.  Chiros have a financial incentive to keep the patients happy with "chenical-free" treatment for everything that ails them - though I would argue that essential oils are chemicals, too, of course .  It's a quick slide into pseudoscience and woo, unfortunately.)

[Jean in Newcastle]

11 minutes ago, wathe said:

Right.  Mechanical manipulation of bones and joints can be effective for many mechanical disorders of bones and joints.  That's where the evidence supports chiropractic treatment, and that's within legitimate evidence-based scope of chiropractic practice.  

(Unfortunately, many chiros don't stop there.  Patients who are attracted to "chemical-free" treatment gravitate to these chiros.  Chiros have a financial incentive to keep the patients happy with "chenical-free" treatment for everything that ails them - though I would argue that essential oils are chemicals, too, of course .  It's a quick slide into pseudoscience and woo, unfortunately.)

I would much rather go to my licensed naturopathic physician for alternative treatments.  And as you pointed out any herbal treatment, vitamin, mineral etc. is made up of chemicals.  He is much more trained though on lifestyle therapies than my allopathic doctor.  But I definitely will call my allopathic doctor first when I have an acute injury or illness.  My naturopathic doc coordinates with him on my chronic pain and illness because that is the strength of naturopathic medicine.  (But I also chose my naturopath very very carefully because there is a lot of woo and snake oil under that banner as well.)  But in my "posse" of doctors:  I have the chiropractor for my skeleton, my primary care allopath for acute illness and overall coordination of my multiple problems, my naturopath for my chronic pain and illness, my physical therapist for my muscles and a number of specialists for a number of specialist problems.  But all of them limit their practice to what they have been actually trained and licensed to do.  

[wathe]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

As far as chiros go, I'm sure there is a range, as is also true of MDs.

I go by my personal / family experience.  The chiro I go to gives us results, whereas our visits to MDs more often than not produce only a big bill and a dose of discomfort.  Of course we can always say no to any advice that sounds illogical to us.

I think that aside from individual differences, at least in the US, there are disincentives to MDs from spending time to get to know a patient.  Maybe this is different where you've had a chance to see the same MD over a course of years - I haven't had that chance, due to a high rate of turnover in every conventional practice I've used.

Besides that, in general, I prefer a non-chemical, non-intrusive approach to anything where that has a chance to work.  Meds tend to work against each other, leading MDs to prescribe more and more, with detrimental effects.  I prefer that meds or medical procedures be an option of last resort.

Before I started with our chiro about 8 years ago, I too thought chiro was woo or just for the skeleton.  I'm glad I got a referral for my kid and followed up on it.

MDs and chiros have different scopes of practice.  And you are right, I think some of what you've experienced with MD's is due to the American model of healthcare delivery (based on what I gather on this board, where there is an awful lot of posting about medical issues and care delivery).  Canada is more primary care focused.  Most Canadians have a family doctor.  Access to specialists is by referral only, co-ordinated by the family doctor. ** Doctor's fees/visits are paid for by the state.  The cost to the patient out-of-pocket to see a doctor is zero dollars - no bill, no co-pays, nothing.

Western medicine does rely heavily on medication/medicines.  The evidence for medication is very, very strong, and it's the backbone of modern medicine, for sure.  Because it works - diabetes, heart disease, cancer treatment, rheumatological disorders, infections, acute pain management, chronic pain management.  Without medication most of us would have much shorter and much more uncomfortable lives.

There has been a distinct shift in family medicine (starting at least 20 years ago when I was training) toward more holistic patient-centred care models, with emphasis shared decision-making, preventive care (exercise prescriptions, dietician referrals etc as well as standard screening like paps and colonoscopies), managing social determinants of health, caring for the whole patient.  Despite all this, medication Rx is always going to be the cornerstone of western medicine - because it's evidence based, and it works.

There has also been a shift in patient expectations regarding the above - patients who want a feel-good experience, reject the science, and yet blame the doctor when they don't get the outcome they want (more extreme examples include parents who are anti-vax who bring in their unvaccinated, sick, febrile kid to the doctor because they are worried and want something done about it, yet reject the tools the MD has to manage the issue - medications and IV's.  Then sue when there's a predictably bad outcome.   Or treat their child's cancer with woo.  Yes, this really happens.).  Chiros and other wellness-type practitioners are profiting from and, I think, propagating this social trend. 

As I've said up thread, there is good evidence for mechanical manipulation of bones and joints for the treatment of some mechanical bone and joint disorders.  Chiros are great at that.  

 

**ETA care delivery is a little different province to province, but all are bound to the Canada Health Act, which requires

• Public Administration
• Comprehensiveness
• Universality
• Portability
• Accessibility

  I'm most familiar with my own province, obviously.  There is a strong commitment to a primary care model nation-wide.

Edited January 18, 2021 by wathe

[Scarlett]

7 hours ago, Quill said:

He definitely wants familiarity; I can assume that from him asking me to call him by his casual first name. 
I am thinking about your second question...I think the answer is No, but I do get a strong vibe of gender stereotyping from him. For example, he was talking about an all-female firm where he said, “The bathroom was filthy...wouldn’t you think a firm full of females would keep the bathrooms clean?” And other similar things. He also tried out some racial stereotyping on me early on but I shut it down. We had a pretty significant argument over that. 

I think it is a good question.   LOL  Don't women typically insist on a cleaner bathroom?  Or were you thinking he was implying they should have been cleaning the bathrooms themselves?

It is a statistical fact that when men share a bathroom with women they are more careful.  

 

[Scarlett]

On 1/17/2021 at 2:57 PM, katilac said:

Just as "sheep" is a very odd insult for Christians to use! 

 

Right?  Blows my mind.  I can't follow how that crowd of violent rioters think of themselves as Christian.  Christ like.  Followers of Christ.  They don't seem to want religion as much as they just want their own way.

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

40 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Right?  Blows my mind.  I can't follow how that crowd of violent rioters think of themselves as Christian.  Christ like.  Followers of Christ.  They don't seem to want religion as much as they just want their own way.

 

They have rejected following God to instead follow the political leader(s) of their choice.  Which has an added level of irony since Jesus Christ specifically rejected becoming a political leader in His time and instead chose to willingly go to the cross to pay the penalty for people's sins - thus paving the way for us to be in His eternal kingdom, not an earthly one.  They are dangerously ignorant Christians at best, and not really followers of Christ at the worst.  (Based on what the Bible says identifies a follower of Christ.)

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

They have rejected following God to instead follow the political leader(s) of their choice.  Which has an added level of irony since Jesus Christ specifically rejected becoming a political leader in His time and instead chose to willingly go to the cross to pay the penalty for people's sins - thus paving the way for us to be in His eternal kingdom, not an earthly one.  They are dangerously ignorant Christians at best, and not really followers of Christ at the worst.  (Based on what the Bible says identifies a follower of Christ.)

While I agree with this, I have people in my life who think that the bolded means that we don't have to think about how Christianity and the church has changed for/been changed by the rhetoric of the last 4-5 years. They truly believe that there is no connection between what is said by a politician and what is done by those claiming to be Christian (and literally praying on the Senate floor after violently invading that space) because those people aren't really Christians. For them, the protest/riot was peaceful except for the loonies, and the loonies don't represent them, and nobody they know would do such a thing (except there are people much like them among that mob as footage comes out and people are identified).

Do you have suggestions for how to address that because I am beyond frustrated, and it's going to affect relationships very close to me? It's already affected relationships at church. I think people think the mob is fringe, but the things that mob said are reflected in what I saw all summer on FB memes until I had to finally unfriend some people--I wish I had taken screenshots to show to the people who think it couldn't be them next and wasn't people who are like them. 

I am not sure my question is clear because I am so distressed by this, but I am scared for family now, not just friends. Wrapped up in this is the "All politicians lie" idea, but without any serious ongoing measurement of the magnitude, context, and ramifications of those lies.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I think it is a good question.   LOL  Don't women typically insist on a cleaner bathroom?  Or were you thinking he was implying they should have been cleaning the bathrooms themselves?

It is a statistical fact that when men share a bathroom with women they are more careful.  

 

Interesting...I would not think that at all. For me, the answer to, “Wouldn’t you think an all-female firm would keep their bathrooms tidy?” is a puzzled, “No...” I know men who keep fastidious bathrooms and women who are slobs. To me it has nothing to do with gender; it has to do with whether the person is fastidious or not. 

Out of my three children, the one who likes things neat and orderly the most is male. My dd is on the messy side and is marrying someone who likes order a lot. 

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, Quill said:

Interesting...I would not think that at all. For me, the answer to, “Wouldn’t you think an all-female firm would keep their bathrooms tidy?” is a puzzled, “No...” I know men who keep fastidious bathrooms and women who are slobs. To me it has nothing to do with gender; it has to do with whether the person is fastidious or not. 

Out of my three children, the one who likes things neat and orderly the most is male. My dd is on the messy side and is marrying someone who likes order a lot. 

From my personal experience, the "nature" part of this is pretty equal: some men and some women like things very tidy, and some don't. However, the "nurture" emphatically pushes things to the unequal side, since men are TAUGHT that it's not really their domain and therefore aren't really taught how to clean up after themselves or think about it. 

So... yes, I would tend to expect all-female spaces to be somewhat cleaner, but not for any kind of innate reason. I've also seen plenty of neat freak men and not very tidy women (I plead guilty, lol, although my husband is such a slob that I'm definitely the tidy one in the family.) 

[Jean in Newcastle]

On 1/18/2021 at 2:20 PM, kbutton said:

While I agree with this, I have people in my life who think that the bolded means that we don't have to think about how Christianity and the church has changed for/been changed by the rhetoric of the last 4-5 years. They truly believe that there is no connection between what is said by a politician and what is done by those claiming to be Christian (and literally praying on the Senate floor after violently invading that space) because those people aren't really Christians. For them, the protest/riot was peaceful except for the loonies, and the loonies don't represent them, and nobody they know would do such a thing (except there are people much like them among that mob as footage comes out and people are identified).

Do you have suggestions for how to address that because I am beyond frustrated, and it's going to affect relationships very close to me? It's already affected relationships at church. I think people think the mob is fringe, but the things that mob said are reflected in what I saw all summer on FB memes until I had to finally unfriend some people--I wish I had taken screenshots to show to the people who think it couldn't be them next and wasn't people who are like them. 

I am not sure my question is clear because I am so distressed by this, but I am scared for family now, not just friends. Wrapped up in this is the "All politicians lie" idea, but without any serious ongoing measurement of the magnitude, context, and ramifications of those lies.

I don't think that there are any quick fixes or any pat responses that will be "heard".  I have thought a lot about Romans 13 lately and how the admonition to submit to governing authorities was given by Paul to believers who were under the rule of Nero, of all rulers.  Now, there are rebuttals to this written by people who don't want to follow it so I flat out know that people will do the "yes but" reply. 

Even if you ignore those admonitions (and there are other passages other than that one), there is also the fruit of the Spirit:  you know, things like love, gentleness, kindness, patience, self control . . .     I really think that what is going to have to happen is that God the Holy Spirit is going to have to convict those who are really His children and in many situations, discipline them.  I am actually praying for this.  Not in a vindictive way but because I have sorrow for the church here (much as Dreamergal has posted) and I want my brothers and sisters restored even if it means some hard times in the process.  (And lest someone say that I am being hypocritical, I want God to correct me on anything and everything where I am not following His word as well.  I know that I have my blindspots and I am not without sin.)

Edited January 19, 2021 by Jean in Newcastle
typo

[Katy]

30 minutes ago, Quill said:

Interesting...I would not think that at all. For me, the answer to, “Wouldn’t you think an all-female firm would keep their bathrooms tidy?” is a puzzled, “No...” I know men who keep fastidious bathrooms and women who are slobs. To me it has nothing to do with gender; it has to do with whether the person is fastidious or not. 

Out of my three children, the one who likes things neat and orderly the most is male. My dd is on the messy side and is marrying someone who likes order a lot. 

Interesting. The female lawyers I know were all slobs in college. The fastidious ones went into engineering, medicine or work for Google. I think the lawyers were all probably a bit ADHD. Smart, creative, not organized.

[prairiewindmomma]

I'm still hung up on why he thought it was the attorneys that trashed the bathroom, and not clients who came in, or staff, or a dude before him, since apparently he was a guy in a mixed gender restroom.

Or why he thought people who bill out at $200/hr should be mopping the floors, instead the housekeeping crew.  Dude, I could work for an hour, and pay someone else to clean for 8, iykwim. 

Sorry, Quill, I've worked for a lot of sexist and racist old white men, and it doesn't make life easy in the office.

 

[HeartString]

11 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Or why he thought people who bill out at $200/hr should be mopping the floors, instead the housekeeping crew.  Dude, I could work for an hour, and pay someone else to clean for 8, iykwim. 

That was actually what I would have thought he meant.  That an office full of women lawyers would have insisted on having a clean bathroom, as in insisted that there was the staff to keep it that way.  

[SKL]

4 hours ago, wathe said:

Right.  Mechanical manipulation of bones and joints can be effective for many mechanical disorders of bones and joints.  That's where the evidence supports chiropractic treatment, and that's within legitimate evidence-based scope of chiropractic practice.  

(Unfortunately, many chiros don't stop there.  Patients who are attracted to "chemical-free" treatment gravitate to these chiros.  Chiros have a financial incentive to keep the patients happy with "chenical-free" treatment for everything that ails them - though I would argue that essential oils are chemicals, too, of course .  It's a quick slide into pseudoscience and woo, unfortunately.)

Actually my focus is on wellness, i.e. improving the chances of living a good life without unnatural intervention,or put another way, reducing the chances of needing a "cure" in the first place.  I've found that my family gets this from our chiro.

I once asked our chiro what she'd recommend if xyz happened (I can't remember what), and she said she would recommend we go to an MD.  At least our practice isn't against "conventional medicine" for treating serious diseases once they exist.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I think it is a good question.   LOL  Don't women typically insist on a cleaner bathroom?  Or were you thinking he was implying they should have been cleaning the bathrooms themselves?

It is a statistical fact that when men share a bathroom with women they are more careful.  

 

I was a part owner of a factory for about a year.  The previous owner (then 25% owner) was a guy who had major cash problems and didn't have a cleaning crew.  We had male and female employees.  The women kept their own bathroom clean, presumably kuz they used it and didn't want to be gross.  One day I was cleaning, and I went into to the men's room when there were no men there.  It was so gross.  I cleaned it well.  The next time I went in there, it was disgusting again.  They pee all over the place.  At that point I decided I was not in charge of cleaning the men's room, nor were any of the women who worked there.  If the men want to live like that, let them, or let them hire it done.

I don't know what the situation was in the pp, but if a guy went into a bathroom in a business establishment, was it a men's room or unisex?  If it was a men's room, then how would the women even know it was dirty, unless they were the cleaning crew?  But if it was unisex, then yeah, I would think women, who sit down to pee, would want it to be reasonably clean.  Call me sexist, I don't care.

[SKL]

42 minutes ago, Katy said:

Interesting. The female lawyers I know were all slobs in college. The fastidious ones went into engineering, medicine or work for Google. I think the lawyers were all probably a bit ADHD. Smart, creative, not organized.

LOL I'm a female lawyer and I like things clean and organized.  The engineer in our house is the opposite, lol.  As for my kids, my more engineering-minded one is an even bigger slob than her auntie.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Interesting...I would not think that at all. For me, the answer to, “Wouldn’t you think an all-female firm would keep their bathrooms tidy?” is a puzzled, “No...” I know men who keep fastidious bathrooms and women who are slobs. To me it has nothing to do with gender; it has to do with whether the person is fastidious or not. 

Out of my three children, the one who likes things neat and orderly the most is male. My dd is on the messy side and is marrying someone who likes order a lot. 

Yes, but statistically men who have a men’s only bathroom will not be as careful about it as they are if a female is going to follow them into it.  A former boss once told me cleanliness of a bathroom is an indication of how well the company is managed.  He would be about 67 by now so probably a similar age to your boss.  Maybe it is a generational belief.  And maybe it is true.  

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I'm still hung up on why he thought it was the attorneys that trashed the bathroom, and not clients who came in, or staff, or a dude before him, since apparently he was a guy in a mixed gender restroom.

Or why he thought people who bill out at $200/hr should be mopping the floors, instead the housekeeping crew.  Dude, I could work for an hour, and pay someone else to clean for 8, iykwim. 

Sorry, Quill, I've worked for a lot of sexist and racist old white men, and it doesn't make life easy in the office.

 

I don’t think he thought the lawyers should be cleaning.  I think he thinks they should require better for their bathrooms. 

 And frankly I agree.