Posts by susiecue

Just watch out that you factor in nutrition along with low-calories.  I know some of those choices were no-win, but a little fat and/or protein with the pasta (or rice) actually helps fill you up better. 

Original Post by lbh:

Is it possible that before recent times we just weren't able to detect allergies as easily? I mean if a child went into anaphalactic shock 100 years ago...was anyone even able to help them medically? And did we pursue an autopsy like we would today to figure out the cause of death?

It's possible, but there's a lot of research showing that allergies really are more prevalent and more severe these days, in large part due to our hypersterile (relative to the past) environment.  Kids aren't exposed to as much dirt and germs as they used to so their immune systems find other things to react to.  (There is, for example, evidence that kids that grow up on farms have fewer allergies than city kids despite - or possibly *because* - the fact that they're exposed to more, dirt, pollen, animal dander, etc.)

Original Post by kevinatthebrook:

Original Post by susiecue:

Nobody should have to apologize for being privileged.  What is important is to recognize it and to work toward making it possible for everyone.

Why is it important that we recognize it? I agree making it possible for everyone is important but I have doubts that recognizing it provides any real utility. To the contrary, recognizing it might actually discourage progress. "Look at group XYZ, they have all that privilege, why should I make an effort"

If you don't recognize something, you can't change it (in this case, by extending "privilege" to more people).  If people on hiring committees don't realize that they subconsciously favour those like them, they'll continue to do it.  If people see that a certain socioeconomic class of straight white male is generally more successful and don't realize that those individuals got a bit of a helping hand (or, at least, experienced fewer roadblocks), they just assume that those individuals are better suited to being successful and the restriction of privilege continues. 

And, no, lysistra, the world will never be perfectly equal and perfectly fair.  But it needs to become more fair for the white/black/asian/native/latin man/woman.  When it's systematically unfair, that needs to be fixed as much as possible.  Which is difficult because humans are hardwired to favour 'their own' over the 'other'.  (Kin selection and all that evolutionary stuff.)  And, in my opinion, we need to fight that.

I work in a field where the 'old boys club' is rampant.  I can guarantee you that none of those 'old boys' think they're sexist.  Yet, when looking at postdoc positions, I had to maintain a list of "don't go there; they won't let you do anything worthwhile" supervisors to avoid; my male colleagues did not. That was their "privilege".  We should all have had that "privilege".

Until those top players either realize that they are, in fact, sexist or are replaced by people who aren't (and who haven't implicitly learned bad habits from the 'old boys'), it will continue to be incredibly difficult for a woman to be successful in this field.  That's the 'baggage' I bring to the debate.  When people say 'there's no more sexism; men have it harder', I just don't know whether to laugh or cry because it's so very untrue.

Okay, then.  Here's an article from the Journal of Applied Psychology supporting the reference letters point.  http://www.academic.umn.edu/wfc/rec%20letter% 20study%202009.pdf ;

Frankly, mostly I read articles; I don't file them away for future reference because my field of study has nothing to do with gender.  This was simply the easiest one to re-find using specific search terms on Google.  :-)  You can believe me or not that I've read articles in real journals supporting my other points.  And experienced some of it.  (I had one notoriously awful university professor who never let any of the women ask/answer questions in class.)

Also, WRT the scholarships/awards for minorities, women, disabled, etc.  While I appreciate their purpose (try to undo the microinequities that those students have experienced along the way), I don't think they actually help.  Partly because some people get whiny about being excluded from them.  But mostly because if there are two equally qualified students up for awards, human nature is to give them both if possible (most universities have a committee that awards all the scholarships at once, in part to prevent excessive duplication).  So, the black student will get the special "black student" award and the white student will get the "all students" award.  So, if looks like the black student is weaker (even though they're not) which hurts them in the long run (because they wind up with a weaker CV).  Or it helps the white student.   However you want to view that.  It also doesn't help that usually (though not always), the award for minorities is worth less money as well.

It's very obvious that a few posters here don't "get" what privilege entails.  It doesn't mean you had a gifted life.  It doesn't mean you got everything you ever wanted.  It doesn't mean you didn't have to work hard for things.  What it means is that, whether or not you're willing to acknowledge it, you got little boosts along the way that you probably didn't even notice.  Most of my examples will be male/female because that's the area I know most about (due to my own privilege).

e.g.  You're in second grade.  A few students have questions, but class is almost over so there's only time for the teacher to answer one of them.  The teacher will usually pick a boy (unless they've been trained to be sensitive to this).  So, if you're a girl, your chances of being picked are 0%.  If you're a boy, your chances of being picked are better.  It doesn't mean you will be picked.  But you got an edge.  (A properly trained teacher will consciously alternate between picking boys and girls and try to pick students that haven't been picked lately.  I hope that happens a lot more now, but 30 years ago it didn't.)

e.g.  You were one of the students who didn't get picked in the last example.  If you're a girl, you were probably socialized to be "nice" and "demure" and probably won't try to bother the teacher after class.  If you're a boy, you were probably socialized to "get what you want/need" so you ask the teacher after class and get your question answered.

e.g.  The hiring committee consists of a group of white men with nuclear families.  All candidates appear to be equal so they hire the one who will "fit in the best".  Odds are better that they're hiring the white guy over the black man or the asian woman.

e.g.  Medical school application boards are reviewing reference letters.  The ones for male candidates emphasize their achievements.  The ones for female candidates emphasize their bedside manner.  (This happens a *lot*.)  Who will appear most qualified?

Original Post by armandounc:

The problem is trying to find explanations for the numbers. He says something about the math showing that 10 calories make a fatter person gain more weight than a thinner person..... that makes no sense whatsoever.

Actually, it makes a little sense (other than the fact that 10 calories will not result in a measurable weight gain for anyone).  How efficiently we extract calories from food is determined, in part, by our gut flora (who do much of the work of digestion for us).  If someone has very efficient gut flora, they will either (a) tend to eat less or (b) be heavier than someone who has inefficient gut flora.  So, if you put two identical people on the same diet, the one whose gut flora can more efficiently extract calories from food will be heavier.  Reverse that statement and you realise that, in some cases, people who are heavier will have more efficient gut flora.  Of course, there are lots and lots of reasons for one person to be heavier than another, so you'd only expect to see a slight correlation.

Original Post by halfhearted:

I tried going back to diet coke but man it tastes soooo bad I just couldn't do it so now I'm trying to substitute some coke for water. Really addicted though

Have you tried Coke Zero?  It's not the same as regular Coke, but it's a lot closer.  (I find regular Coke to taste like drinking syrup after drinking Coke Zero and/or Diet Coke for a few years, so there's obviously some difference - though I didn't notice it when I first switched.)

With regard to the diet soda and weight gain, I think it depends on how often and when you drink it.  If it's with a meal then you should be fine since your body is getting the calories that the sweeteners are telling it to expect so it shouldn't trigger cravings.  If it's on its own, that's more likely to make you crave sweets.  It varies from person to person though (and I suspect it's yet another case where moderation helps).  Sometimes, I find that a diet soda will actually satisfy a craving for sweetness rather than trigger one.

You know your body best so you know how it interacts with soda.  And, yes, neither regular nor diet is healthy and water's a better choice.  But you already knew that.

Original Post by krawecj:

What's sad is that Danielle Smith sounds the least loony tunes compared to the rest of the nutcases running for Premiere in Alberta.

But they are all must and making ridiculous promises that they can't possibly keep.

To bad Ralph Klein now suffers from pretty bad dementia, I'd happily vote him back in so that Alberta gets out of debt again.

Having watched the candidates' debate, I'd rank the loonytunesness of the leaders as: Raj Sherman (seems pretty much insane), big gap, Danielle Smith (seemed fine in the debate, but has aligned herself with a party full of bigots and loonies so something must be not-quite-there), Alison Redford (so far, dramatically superior to previous Tory leaders but will still have their sins projected onto her), NDP leader whose name I currently forget (who was, by far, the most logical in the debate).

I'd hate to have Ralph Klein back as he's the one who started privatizing health care in Alberta.  Same reason I'm glad Redford beat her main opponent in the party leader election.

In any sane population, his comments would not need to be banned because nobody in their right mind would vote for the bigot.  So, really, they're helpful because they show his bigotry to the world and, in theory, show people that he is not someone worth voting for.

I really really hope that's how it plays out.

18.  I went to university; they moved to another country.  My sister went with them, and she moved out (the first time) at about 20 (halfway through university). 

As long as you're geniunely actively looking for a 'real' job to the best of your ability and contributing as much as possible (i.e. doing your fair share of the household chores and paying at least a token rent/utilities/grocery money or equivalent value in extra chores - essentially, covering the cost to your parents of having you there), I think it's reasonable to stay at home until your job hunt is successful.