Eve Ensler on America the Beautiful :)
LOVE YOUR TREE!!!
--Tagged under: body image--
--Tagged under: feminism--
This weekend I was told a story which, although I’m kind of ashamed to admit it, because holy shit is it ever obvious, is kind of blowing my mind.
A friend of a friend won a free consultation with Clinton Kelly of What Not To Wear, and she was very excited, because she has a…
--Tagged under: fashion--
--Tagged under: ladythings--
--Tagged under: walls of text--
--Tagged under: me just talking--
--Tagged under: sizeism--
--Tagged under: fatphobia--
It doesn’t mean I’m religious.
Because I’m not.
It doesn’t mean I hate LGBT community.
Because I am a supporter.
It doesn’t mean I force women to give birth.
Because I never will.
Take what you want from my blog, but never assume I’m just your…
--Tagged under: women's rights--
The study this article was written about was published in the British Journal of Criminology. May I repeat - a criminology journal. Yes, this is the kind of thinking that apparently goes on in the legal system, and suddenly it makes sense how horribly “alleged” rape victims are treated when they try to come forward.
I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t personally experienced some form of sexual violation. And most of the time, at least part of the responsibility for the incident falls on the victim. “Her skirt was too short.” “Her heels were too high.” “She drank too much.”
For the last time: it isn’t her short skirt, or the fact that she’s drunk that puts a women at risk for rape. It’s the fact that she’s near a rapist. Period.
It completely blows my mind that having been abused by an intimate could somehow disqualify you for health insurance. Talk about victim-blaming! I’m not sure how often it happens - the article says it’s unknown - but the fact that it has or could happen at all is definitely enough to cause outrage.
Today on the news I also read that a large baby was denied health insurance because of his obesity. Absurd!
--Tagged under: Health care--
the united way of greater los angeles recently performed a homeless cost study (pdf) to do an in-depth analysis and comparison of people who were chronically homeless before and after being placed in permanent supportive housing. the study tracked the social services used by the group before and after housing placement to determine the cost-effectiveness of housing the homeless.
people who are chronically homelss often consume a high dollar value of social services such as emergeny rooms, substance abuse treatment facilities, and jail. in two years, the four homeless individuals studied had 19 ER visits, two resulting in hospitalizations. all four had been arrested and spent time in jail, for criminal justice costs of $23,361. the total public service costs for the four over the two years were $187,288.
then the four were placed in permanent supportive housing, with access to services including case management, mental health and substance abuse treatment, medication monitoring, and education classes. ER vists dropped dramatically and there were no arrests or jail/prison time. the only area where costs increased were mental health. the total public service costs for the four over the two years in permanent supportive housing were $107,032 - a savings of $80,256 or almost 43%.
so - our societal costs would decrease overall if we were willing to provide permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless. it also means that the individuals see a significant increase in quality of life and can become re-integrated into and contributing to society as a whole. but that would mean that we were giving housing to people who might be drug addicts, or otherwise considered “undeserving” of that kind of assistance. and we would rather pay higher costs than admit that these people are deserving of compassion and assistance.