Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:12 AM Apr 2013

no more, no less. a pediatrician looks at ALL parents as POTENTIAL abusers.

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

from the day i had babies until they got plenty old, all doctors have looked at me as a potential abuser. or poor parent. they do not accuse. they do not come out and say it. they do not assume i am an abuser.

but, every one of my boys doctors ask the right questions. and i know what they are asking the boys, and why they are asking the boys.

i have never been bothered. i appreciate a doctor taking this position. it is his/her job. i did not resent it, i did not feel accused, i did not feel like he was saying i was an abuser. and i felt he had my childrens best interest at heart.

i also have felt the same with teachers and principles.

it is their job.

now, anyone, tell me this is an extreme position to hold.

372 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
no more, no less. a pediatrician looks at ALL parents as POTENTIAL abusers. (Original Post) seabeyond Apr 2013 OP
The same applies today to a woman being treated for an injury in an ER. appleannie1 Apr 2013 #1
I don't think it is. Aristus Apr 2013 #2
abuse can take many forms.. Voice for Peace Apr 2013 #12
I wouldn't be a very ethical medical provider if I said: Aristus Apr 2013 #86
yes I understand Voice for Peace Apr 2013 #91
"I stopped being polite years ago." = the doctor *is* angering and discouraging them, & personally HiPointDem Apr 2013 #106
Truth-tellers are often called idiots. We live with it. Aristus Apr 2013 #122
yes, poor you, truth-telling in the wilderness. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #142
That's okay; I'm not lonely or anything. Aristus Apr 2013 #150
a question Voice for Peace Apr 2013 #245
I do talk about the importance of proper nutrition and the importance Aristus Apr 2013 #248
yes, a lot of company, including the US government. which is why my comment was sarcastic. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #283
Incivility to smokers is simply incivility returned. Aristus Apr 2013 #286
bullshit. few smokers puff directly into other people's faces and puffing smoke into the air has HiPointDem Apr 2013 #288
One doesn't need to puff in my face. Aristus Apr 2013 #293
oh wah wah. and smokers don't "inevitably" "toss the butts out in a shower of sparks" either. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #304
Nicotine is not a carcinogen, as to its potency as a poison Drahthaardogs Apr 2013 #275
Nice bit of mis-direction, there. Aristus Apr 2013 #277
You said it was a poison, Drahthaardogs Apr 2013 #278
One could argue that a lot of the things that we voluntarily put into our bodies Aristus Apr 2013 #282
You can die of WATER intoxication Drahthaardogs Apr 2013 #287
My, this rings a bell! You remind me one of my favorite DU smoking threads, ever! msanthrope Apr 2013 #130
abuse can take the form of a doctor using his position of power to berate and demean his HiPointDem Apr 2013 #292
Side question... Totally unrelated... Sharpie Apr 2013 #48
No. As long as they didn't get offended when I replied: Aristus Apr 2013 #85
Do you ask them about alcohol, drugs, especially prescription drugs they have lying around sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #93
I have different ways of asking. Aristus Apr 2013 #100
No way you are a physician of any sort. You are not the provider, and it is not 'your clinic'. Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #314
ok. you hate smoking. in the way I dislike fast driving.seriously? Smokers shouldn't be parents? robinlynne Apr 2013 #64
This isn't the first time I've had smokers complain because they are, in a sense, Aristus Apr 2013 #89
I wouldn't take my kid to a self-righteous prick. Comrade Grumpy Apr 2013 #97
No need. Aristus Apr 2013 #101
Comrade Grumpy wasn't being a prick. kurtzapril4 Apr 2013 #367
Neither would I Progressive dog Apr 2013 #115
No need. Sissyk Apr 2013 #195
So you don't mind smoke getting blown into YOUR face then? alp227 Apr 2013 #259
is the patient smoking in the doctor's office? no? then the doctor is not getting smoke blown in HiPointDem Apr 2013 #295
OK, it is possible to wash nicotine off clothing. alp227 Apr 2013 #303
touching nicotine doesn't poison you. neither does breathing clothes with smoke smell in them. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #305
Hate to break it to you, Smokey, Aristus Apr 2013 #308
irrelevant to my post, which said: touching someone with nicotine on your fingers doesn't poison HiPointDem Apr 2013 #310
But I don't want to be exposed to nicotine, neither should you. alp227 Apr 2013 #313
you don't have to be. nicotine on one's fingers and cigarette smell in one's clothing isn't 2nd-hand HiPointDem Apr 2013 #317
If not in that sense, alp227 Apr 2013 #322
is it a bad influence to have judgmental hysterics for parents? how about to have judgmental, HiPointDem Apr 2013 #326
Who blows smoke in their kid's faces? kurtzapril4 Apr 2013 #368
I Bet RobinA Apr 2013 #78
Smokers don't care who they kill. Aristus Apr 2013 #88
Here's What I'M Bleating About RobinA Apr 2013 #104
I'm not a pediatrician. I'm a primary care provider. And a Physician Assistant, not a doctor. Aristus Apr 2013 #110
I wish someone would have said that to my parents when I was a kid. KitSileya Apr 2013 #116
I never tell my patients that quitting is going to be easy. Nicotine is the most addictive substance Aristus Apr 2013 #127
"I've seen my mother try to quit many times" = someone apparently *did* tell her that, & she HiPointDem Apr 2013 #298
I heard you're a medical assistant, not a PA. There's a big difference. If you're doing the HiPointDem Apr 2013 #345
You've been misinformed. I'm a Physician Assistant. Aristus Apr 2013 #362
it doesn't matter to me; you're still a medical provider giving false information to patients. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #363
It's too bad you think cigarette smoking does no harm. Aristus Apr 2013 #364
it's funny you can't address my actual criticism; your claim that smokers poison their children HiPointDem Apr 2013 #365
Re-read everything this poster has said. It is simply telling people THE TRUTH about their actions. KittyWampus Apr 2013 #240
no; the doctor is telling lies to his patients. it's a *lie* that parents who smoke are HiPointDem Apr 2013 #296
He's not a doctor. He's a medical assistant; takes BP, makes notes ... REP Apr 2013 #338
this guy is a *medical assistant*? & he's running his mouth telling people they're poisoning their HiPointDem Apr 2013 #341
A medical assistant at a low-income clinic, at that. REP Apr 2013 #343
If that's the case, even worse than i thought. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #344
+1. it's about power displays, not helping anyone. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #297
No kidding! kurtzapril4 Apr 2013 #369
idiotic. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #107
Pill poppers don't care either and since the whole country seems to be on pills of one sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #109
I've heard that before: Aristus Apr 2013 #131
Same can be said of the air we breathe every day. Plenty of non smokers sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #137
The crux of your arguement seems to be that the very air can kill you. Aristus Apr 2013 #147
The longest living people I've ever known, have been the least likely to stress and obsess sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #266
If you'll re-read my posts carefully, you'll notice I never said smoking was the only hazard to Aristus Apr 2013 #267
Then we are not in disagreement. sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #268
I do. Aristus Apr 2013 #271
My fil is a diabetic and I helped take care of him for while after the death of my mil. He sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #272
Thank you. Aristus Apr 2013 #274
Thank you, I am glad also as I got to know a very special person. sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #335
you weren't *talking* about smokers, you were talking about smokers who poisoned their HiPointDem Apr 2013 #300
You seem to have left your compassion by the wayside. Chemisse Apr 2013 #197
As you have already picked up, it's getting harder and harder for me to be compassionate on this Aristus Apr 2013 #234
How do you know kurtzapril4 Apr 2013 #370
Being honest isn't being insulting. And it's very, very telling so many DU'ers confuse the two. KittyWampus Apr 2013 #243
being honest *is* insulting when you do it rudely. as the doctor admits he does. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #301
idiotic. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #105
oh good gawd. ceile Apr 2013 #117
You must not read very much. Aristus Apr 2013 #140
take the self righteous bit somewhere else. ceile Apr 2013 #170
You were interested enough to comment. Aristus Apr 2013 #182
well, yes, smoking is bad auntsue Apr 2013 #346
Your comment about the woman who put off going to the Dr really hit home nadine_mn Apr 2013 #372
I don't think it's extreme, as long as the doctor's concern isn't extreme Voice for Peace Apr 2013 #3
here is another perfectly good example. a vet. a vet looks at the client as a potential abuser. seabeyond Apr 2013 #4
It's fine if they know how to use the training. In my case it wasn't a vet, just a friend Voice for Peace Apr 2013 #14
I'm curious. How do you benefit from child abusers? UnrepentantLiberal Apr 2013 #5
you have an issue about the discussion on that thread, follow every poster that understood seabeyond Apr 2013 #7
Are you lost? Sekhmets Daughter Apr 2013 #63
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #207
And this has something to do with doctors Sekhmets Daughter Apr 2013 #221
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #226
Well, obviously that's the case for some.... Sekhmets Daughter Apr 2013 #232
Exactly. This OP was for the purpose of justifying the "all men are potential rapists" debacle. pacalo Apr 2013 #349
What I find sad chervilant Apr 2013 #250
It's a poor way to go about your job. cali Apr 2013 #6
it is simple to me cali. i guess it is not to others. not gonna fight over this. OP clear. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #8
"Being vigilant doesn't de facto signify looking at all parents as potential abusers." redqueen Apr 2013 #31
When my 4 month old laundry_queen Apr 2013 #325
I was shocked and dismayed one day when our family doctor enough Apr 2013 #9
i have always appreciated it and never felt affronted by it. but, this is a very good example. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #10
Growing up my mother always said abelenkpe Apr 2013 #69
That's an interesting story, abelenkpe. I wonder how your mother enough Apr 2013 #371
Thom Hartmann had a debate about that topic 2 years back alp227 Apr 2013 #315
Sometimes people do need a wakeup call. Warpy Apr 2013 #358
Maybe if there are signs of abuse whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #11
abuse does not always have visible signs. you would really want doctors to ignore this? not me. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #13
No but whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #15
assuming a possibility allows for a question. it is not assuming guilt. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #16
I think there's a fine line between the doctor being alert and informed, Voice for Peace Apr 2013 #17
then at that point a client has the choice to say, screw that doctor, i will find a different one. seabeyond Apr 2013 #18
Not all abuse is physical. Wait Wut Apr 2013 #52
I can't argue with that whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #61
and that is all a woman is saying. better safe than sorry. again, no more or no less than that. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #74
seabeyond whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #83
I don't want to be placed in that group simply because I'm a man. seabeyond Apr 2013 #87
Cool whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #96
I am glad you broke the circle, then KitSileya Apr 2013 #70
There are obstacles all along the way siligut Apr 2013 #19
true all that which has nothing to do with the OP. but ya. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #20
Yes, a pediatrician suspects abuse siligut Apr 2013 #56
The only time I felt that anyone looked at me as a potential abuser was when my daughter Arkansas Granny Apr 2013 #21
did he ask the kid about his diet, how much exercise, tv.... and knowing you as a parent, yes, seabeyond Apr 2013 #23
Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #58
Haha, same! LittleBlue Apr 2013 #186
somebody can't alert in GD for 24 hours Kali Apr 2013 #22
jury is almost always intersting. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #25
All women are potential child murderers. Marr Apr 2013 #24
no. it is not. when are a couple percentage higher in baby murder up to a year older. then men seabeyond Apr 2013 #26
Yes, men suck whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #29
fuckin for real? what, i should lie, pretend otherwise, not challenge soemthing incorrect or seabeyond Apr 2013 #32
I'm not stomping away whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #38
because i give FACTs = manhater. this is your cutting to chase? have at it hoss. seabeyond Apr 2013 #41
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #84
No, you're just playing phone psychic, but without the phone. ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #129
Sure whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #132
I read down thread, and I apologize for what I previously said Squinch Apr 2013 #290
You have nothing to apologize for whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #307
Thank you for your great graciousness. Squinch Apr 2013 #311
Not graciousness really whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #312
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #33
Haha fixed n/t whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #36
you cannot argue so you go to your easy, man hater and grammar. brilliant. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #42
Pure genius. nt WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #57
I find we often minimize or trivialize the irrelevant.. LanternWaste Apr 2013 #73
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #77
Thanks for the lulz! EOTE Apr 2013 #178
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #180
Wow. That was pretty childish and mean spirited. bettyellen Apr 2013 #201
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #203
The thread is actually informative... bettyellen Apr 2013 #208
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #213
Carry on mocking DUers.... bettyellen Apr 2013 #217
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #224
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #238
Yet you didn't realize this was about your EQ? bettyellen Apr 2013 #242
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #244
Another point off for comprehension! bettyellen Apr 2013 #258
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #260
It's kind of sad that you take people explaining concepts bettyellen Apr 2013 #263
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #269
Funniest thing I`ve read all week! opiate69 Apr 2013 #320
... pacalo Apr 2013 #354
That's your argument? Marr Apr 2013 #44
giving facts is not " vehemently-stated" nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #51
Haha, sure. Marr Apr 2013 #53
religious women. all potential child murderers snooper2 Apr 2013 #75
I don't see it that way. Post-partum psychosis is a very serious condition. redqueen Apr 2013 #40
wait, a pedestrian does what? Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #27
thank you for the correct spelling. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #28
Do they remind you and others of this? The Straight Story Apr 2013 #30
you would be wrong. 2-3% of rapes are false claims per U.S., england and australia. seabeyond Apr 2013 #35
Ah...and how many parents actually abuse their kids? How many with guns hurt others? The Straight Story Apr 2013 #45
Your stats are right, very few women who are raped make false claims I posted a graphic on stevenleser Apr 2013 #328
+1.. Behind the Aegis Apr 2013 #350
Next up: young black males are potential criminals. L0oniX Apr 2013 #46
well if they fit a certain percent, us white folks should be scared of them The Straight Story Apr 2013 #59
Say what? Number23 Apr 2013 #279
"Do they remind you and others of this?" you might talk to the MEN about this since they are almost seabeyond Apr 2013 #92
and for you it keeps come back to men The Straight Story Apr 2013 #113
Well said. HappyMe Apr 2013 #124
Wow ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #133
lol. i never read his posts.... i pretty much get thru the first sentence. nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #136
I'm having a WTF moment ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #141
Facts are pesky things, aren't they? EOTE Apr 2013 #189
Hmmm maybe you should look at what you are saying The Straight Story Apr 2013 #166
No, not at all ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #211
Ok, you know what - let's just boil it down to something really simple The Straight Story Apr 2013 #237
I don't know honestly. ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #251
"Derailing"!! I got bingo!!! opiate69 Apr 2013 #323
You need to take a bow! Awesome. Sissyk Apr 2013 #241
Awesome. pacalo Apr 2013 #351
who brought it up? arley. a man. truth dude. it was not a feminist. seabeyond Apr 2013 #134
What does that even mean? The Straight Story Apr 2013 #143
The thread is about pediatric physicians and automatic assumptions of abuse. ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #145
This thread is not about that The Straight Story Apr 2013 #177
I do? ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #214
My three year old can see through this LOL... snooper2 Apr 2013 #222
Your three year can read? ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #229
we are working on it...abcmouse.com snooper2 Apr 2013 #239
TMI ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #257
I think that should be in the signature line for each male DUer. pacalo Apr 2013 #355
arley started a thread yesterday attacking feminist about always saying, all men are potential rapis seabeyond Apr 2013 #148
You say "it is men, reminding men, all the time. " The Straight Story Apr 2013 #200
you want to stop hearing all men are potential rapist, tell men to quit saying, all men are potentia seabeyond Apr 2013 #223
And, yet, here you are, chervilant Apr 2013 #256
Excellent. pacalo Apr 2013 #352
Assuming this is in response to the "all men are potential rapists", here is my question. DanTex Apr 2013 #34
IMO it seems to correlate to how common/widespread the problem is. redqueen Apr 2013 #47
Vigilance, yes. DanTex Apr 2013 #102
I guess if statistics show that workers are overwhelmingly those that steal, then that CEO is right. KitSileya Apr 2013 #114
I'm objecting to the word choice, not the vigilance. DanTex Apr 2013 #121
dantex. we do nto need to make the point for the most part. men bring this sentence up seabeyond Apr 2013 #138
Fair enough. I don't know the history of who said it first and who claimed what. DanTex Apr 2013 #157
i do not think any of us do. in the future, see who brings it up. betcha 100 to 1 it will be a man seabeyond Apr 2013 #161
But where has anyone said "all men are rapists"? KitSileya Apr 2013 #152
To my knowledge, nowhere. DanTex Apr 2013 #175
I'm not a big fan of "softening" the way I state what I believe is truth KitSileya Apr 2013 #198
It's not about softening so much as not choosing deliberately inflammatory language. DanTex Apr 2013 #231
Sometimes the frustration gets so high that I get my back up and I'm ornery just because. KitSileya Apr 2013 #246
I'll take my safety over ego every day mercuryblues Apr 2013 #261
No, you wouldn't. Not if you were on the receiving end of inflammatory language like this. stevenleser Apr 2013 #359
I'm a woman who thinks your comments here are all excellent. pacalo Apr 2013 #353
Beautifully said. Squinch Apr 2013 #291
How about "all ___cops___ are potential ___thugs___" ...and L0oniX Apr 2013 #50
Neither of those statements would be considered geek tragedy Apr 2013 #54
I could swear those very words HAVE been used ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #154
oh, cop hatred is not a violation of community norms here. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #225
Yep whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #68
What do you think the theory means? Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #94
First whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #99
Thanks for this! I think a lot of the problem is that it is a glib slogan Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #108
Thanks for whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #126
It was the best thing you could do for her... Jamastiene Apr 2013 #306
paranoia quinnox Apr 2013 #37
are you saying you disagree with Op and it is extreme? then there is a lotta lotta extreme in this seabeyond Apr 2013 #43
I'm not a fan of Nancy Grace quinnox Apr 2013 #67
I'd imagine that confusing mere concern with the melodrama of paranoia... LanternWaste Apr 2013 #76
Do you get weighed every time you see your MD? siligut Apr 2013 #80
Only if there are INDICATORS for abuse kdmorris Apr 2013 #49
I agree. HappyMe Apr 2013 #62
Research shows they were missing abuse that way! bettyellen Apr 2013 #204
bingo mercuryblues Apr 2013 #360
YAwn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz n/t L0oniX Apr 2013 #55
Posts like these remind me of Clark Griswold. RiffRandell Apr 2013 #60
"gee, dad, you must have jumped that car fifty yards!" "Nothin' to be proud of, Russ" Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #65
"Real tomato ketchup, Eddie?" RiffRandell Apr 2013 #72
"Vicky, can I help you with that kool-aid...please?" pacalo Apr 2013 #356
I heard the other day that they HappyMe Apr 2013 #71
This post was altered on! The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand! ohiosmith Apr 2013 #103
Ew. ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #162
If it walks like a duck... nt EOTE Apr 2013 #193
"I'm glad the staff were as thorough as they were in ruling me, or anyone else out as a cause." LanternWaste Apr 2013 #66
Indeed... haikugal Apr 2013 #81
Sans Some Kind of Reason RobinA Apr 2013 #95
hey did what they were supposed to do-- rule me out. LanternWaste Apr 2013 #119
Well, about what 'potential' means. In the story about the doctors and your injured mother Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #168
Why? 4Q2u2 Apr 2013 #98
The ER staff was advocating for their patient. LanternWaste wasn't the patient. The ER Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #112
But it was his Presumption of Innocence 4Q2u2 Apr 2013 #128
Could you squeeze any more Fox News talking points into this? I bet you could. Squinch Apr 2013 #294
Presumption of Innocence 4Q2u2 Apr 2013 #361
Every time I go see my physician Duer 157099 Apr 2013 #79
It's a numbers game, isn't it? KitSileya Apr 2013 #82
very very balanced post and missing the land mines. yes. exactly. thank you. helps to see it seabeyond Apr 2013 #90
Used to be that priests were beyond such questions. Festivito Apr 2013 #111
Abuse screens are standard now, it is not extreme pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #118
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #120
I'm on pins and needles waiting to see what she comes up with to polly7 Apr 2013 #135
'all men benefit from rape' Rex Apr 2013 #144
you would have to read the article. not gona get non biased from these two. UL is following seabeyond Apr 2013 #149
LMAO!!!! Always, always someone else's fault. polly7 Apr 2013 #153
always fabricating shit. fault? wtf? and bummer. i deleted the OP and the link to the report seabeyond Apr 2013 #155
Sorry, I'm not understanding you at all. nt. polly7 Apr 2013 #156
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #187
Ahhh! Thank you! My brain was hurting trying to understand all that. nt. polly7 Apr 2013 #194
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #199
You're hurting my ribcage! pacalo Apr 2013 #357
"Not all men rape--but all men benefit from the fact that some men do." Rex Apr 2013 #159
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #190
I am reading that thread atm. Rex Apr 2013 #206
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #212
'I think rape is committed by rapists, who are criminals and individuals and who belong in prison.' Rex Apr 2013 #215
My favorite cheerleader. ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #160
Who are you talking to? I'm not your cheerleader ..... big one. ? polly7 Apr 2013 #164
You most certainly aren't. ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #172
That's awesome .... a positive self-image is never a bad thing. nt. polly7 Apr 2013 #174
No it isn't ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #183
Wicked!!! Do you write these yourself?!? nt. polly7 Apr 2013 #191
Wicked!!! Do you read these by yourself?!? nt. ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #216
No way! polly7 Apr 2013 #236
Seriously. nt. polly7 Apr 2013 #151
Are you now dear? ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #158
Quite, actually. polly7 Apr 2013 #163
What are you talking about? ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #179
Clearly. nt. polly7 Apr 2013 #181
Very. n/t. ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #184
. theKed Apr 2013 #265
Don't worry, we have mental illness screens as well... pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #334
So weird that this would be controversial!! bettyellen Apr 2013 #220
I can *mostly understand it. I'm repulsed by it, however. My family didn't require that scrutiny bigtree Apr 2013 #123
Golly... 99Forever Apr 2013 #125
Initial contact Rex Apr 2013 #139
Respectfully, that's a pediatrician's job, really. MineralMan Apr 2013 #146
But there is a correlation in that there is no easy way to tell bettyellen Apr 2013 #233
No, there's no easy way to tell, you're right. MineralMan Apr 2013 #252
Good points. I can say from experience that many bettyellen Apr 2013 #262
I understand. MineralMan Apr 2013 #289
You know what? Raine1967 Apr 2013 #165
ya know. if you feel that way i would think you would have addressed the man that put this garbage seabeyond Apr 2013 #167
Fair enough. I have a question: Raine1967 Apr 2013 #218
ream my ass is a rape reference? well then, see how this works. thanks for the info. i will not seabeyond Apr 2013 #227
This is now becoming laughable. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #247
nope. i didnt. i learn all the time. didnt know wuss was a combination of two words either. seabeyond Apr 2013 #249
seabeyond, Sissyk Apr 2013 #273
i will try this once. seabeyond Apr 2013 #276
Thank you for that reply. It is appreciated. Sissyk Apr 2013 #284
"Not all men rape--but all men benefit from the fact that some men do" polly7 Apr 2013 #330
You are assuming. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #285
Here is a suggestion: edit, or self delete. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #318
Unless you consented to have your...*ahem*... "ass reamed" tkmorris Apr 2013 #264
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #235
I hate expectations... Raine1967 Apr 2013 #280
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #281
I'd like to say I agree with you... Raine1967 Apr 2013 #309
I asked skinner in ATA if he meant for GD to become the new META Rex Apr 2013 #169
That has been my understanding as well. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #205
Maybe we can mix Fight Club with the Olive Garden? Rex Apr 2013 #210
I hate that Alfredo dude. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #316
but, you cheer arneys thread accusing feminists saying this. when he was the only one saying it. seabeyond Apr 2013 #219
CHEER? Raine1967 Apr 2013 #254
CRICKETS. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #321
Thats the problem. temporary311 Apr 2013 #270
If you're so goddamn sick and fucking tired of it, Sheldon Cooper Apr 2013 #173
That's pretty funny. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #192
Then you take what's out there, skippy. Sheldon Cooper Apr 2013 #196
Is that what you got? Raine1967 Apr 2013 #324
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #202
i didnt see you saying the same shit in arneys thread. hypocrite? or bullshitter? nt seabeyond Apr 2013 #228
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #230
Found him!!!!! opiate69 Apr 2013 #331
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #339
Dude.. did he swallow Homer Simpson alive??? opiate69 Apr 2013 #340
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #342
Interesting story LittleBlue Apr 2013 #171
Same here, but this was the early 70s. Rex Apr 2013 #176
I grew up in the 90s-00s LittleBlue Apr 2013 #188
So if a pediatrician has certain "canned" questions Tireman Apr 2013 #185
The questions are to detect abuse that has occurred ... bettyellen Apr 2013 #209
I agree with you Seabeyond undergroundpanther Apr 2013 #253
Once my son fell off the climbing gym at school and broke his wrist. He is on the autism spectrum. kimbutgar Apr 2013 #255
I, too, have had the experience of working with a child where I MISSED abuse. Squinch Apr 2013 #302
Seems that working with children presents a double edged sword when it comes to detecting abuse. alp227 Apr 2013 #348
I take your point, but in my area Squinch Apr 2013 #366
"Guilty until proven innocent" combined with "think of the children". I wonder what's next. idwiyo Apr 2013 #299
Pediatrician = their JOB. Average person = sad. nt Bonobo Apr 2013 #319
young vulnerable person= basic awareness they need bettyellen Apr 2013 #327
You can make safe choices without carrying the mental image that everyone Bonobo Apr 2013 #329
I don't think most people carry the image- in fact most carry the false, reverse image.... bettyellen Apr 2013 #332
Well, in a sense I guess I am. Bonobo Apr 2013 #333
i think you're confusing having knowledge with obsessing about it.... bettyellen Apr 2013 #336
Thank you. Bonobo Apr 2013 #337
Stupid OP. Apophis Apr 2013 #347

appleannie1

(5,044 posts)
1. The same applies today to a woman being treated for an injury in an ER.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:18 AM
Apr 2013

I learned very early on to never touch my children until after the initial anger at what they had done had passed. When you are angry, even holding an arm to lead them to a corner or chair can be tighter than you intended. Much better to tell them to go to their room and think about what was wrong about what they were doing, take a breather, and then mete out the discipline.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
2. I don't think it is.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:19 AM
Apr 2013

I don't do well-child checks much anymore. It's not my target population. But when I do, I just want to smack the shit out of parents who smoke. I stopped being polite years ago.

I tell them: "You're killing your child".

They'll say: "I only smoke outside!" (Yeah, right...)

I reply: "Unless you're smoking in a hurricane, your smoke is settling in your hair and your clothes. Every time you hold your child close, they're breathing that stuff in. Plus, nicotine is skin-permeable; every time you touch your child, you're poisoning him."

Parents: "But I wash my hands after every cigarette!" (Yeah, right, again...)

Me: "It doesn't matter; even if you scrub your skin until it bleeds, you're still getting nicotine on your kids."

Smoking around children is a form of abuse, and I treat it as such.

Some people just shouldn't be parents...

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
12. abuse can take many forms..
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:34 AM
Apr 2013

I don't agree that a parent who smokes is abusing
their kid, unless it's right in their face or around them
all the time. I wouldn't make that auto assumption.

Some of the kindest and wisest people I know are
or have been smokers, and have raised extraordinary
healthy and psychologically un-damaged offspring.

Most of us breathe eat and drink much worse than
what you describe almost all of the time. It's impossible
to avoid the innumerable toxins floating in the air, coating
the surfaces of everything we touch. Almost impossible
to avoid absorbing all these toxins into our bodies,
much worse ones than nicotine, too.

I agree that it's not good for kids to be around smoking
but I hope you make your point with a great deal of
compassion for the smoking parents as well. Being
accused of child abuse is probably not going to help
them quit.

And I don't mean at all to belittle your point. But
to me some of the worst abuse comes from parental
words and expectations -- nothing overt like beatings
or even smoking. Parents who are unkind and
judgmental, punitive, do way more long-term damage
than a bit of second hand smoke. (my opinion)


Aristus

(66,096 posts)
86. I wouldn't be a very ethical medical provider if I said:
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:54 PM
Apr 2013

"There are plenty of things out there besides second-hand smoke that can kill your child; so, yeah, smoke all you want."

Ask any medical provider which diseases he or she hates the most, and the reply likely will be: "The preventable ones."

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
91. yes I understand
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:02 PM
Apr 2013

as long as you are empowering & educating them,
not angering or discouraging the parents.

I'm sure you know.. it's hard to be a parent.
It's hard to be a good parent, and especially for
parents who already have their own demons and challenges.

Most smokers tend to already feel very guilty.
Guilt isn't empowering. Kindness and understanding
are. (My opinion)

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
106. "I stopped being polite years ago." = the doctor *is* angering and discouraging them, & personally
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:27 PM
Apr 2013

i'd never go back to someone who told me 'even if you scrub until your fingers bleed you're poisoning your child' because that is an idiot.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
122. Truth-tellers are often called idiots. We live with it.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:52 PM
Apr 2013

There's an old joke about a man who read in the newspaper that smoking could kill him. Did he quit smoking? No, he quit reading the newspaper.

If you don't come back to me because I told you to quit smoking, you're not really hurting me, are you?

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
245. a question
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:10 PM
Apr 2013

and please believe this is not meant to negate your
point of view:

do you look at the diets of these kids as well, and
give them the same lecture if they feed their
kids artificial foods and flavors, highly processed
commercial foods -- or for example, if they let
them watch more than a small amount of tv?


Aristus

(66,096 posts)
248. I do talk about the importance of proper nutrition and the importance
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:21 PM
Apr 2013

of limiting screen time for kids. There are many factors that affect the raising of a healthy child. For families with financial difficulties, and for whom fast-food is often one of the only alternatives, I stress the importance of food prepared at home, fully aware that working parents may not have the time to prepare it or to afford the most healthful foodstuffs. All I can do is put the information out there.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
283. yes, a lot of company, including the US government. which is why my comment was sarcastic.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:03 PM
Apr 2013

smokers are one of the groups it's ok to be uncivil to; you're hardly a brave truthteller standing against hostile massed power.

which is why you're able to:

- treat your smoking patients rudely and cruelly though such tactics are completely unproductive for anything but making *you* feel superior & powerful

- disbelieve them when they tell you they smoke outside (a lot of smokers smoke outside, even if they don't have kids, because they don't want to stink up their houses, but *you* know better because of your own prejudice)

- tell them absolute crap like "even if you wash your hands until you bleed you are poisoning your children with nicotine" - a lie.

there are half a dozen countries who smoke more, lots more, than americans do & live longer. poverty and inequality contribute as much to bad health as smoking does, but i rarely hear the upper classes getting as self-righteous about *that* as they do about smoking. people don't smoke because they don't know it's bad for them, and no one has ever quit because their doctor behaved like a pompous ass to them.

if i had a doctor like you i'd report him.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
286. Incivility to smokers is simply incivility returned.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:12 PM
Apr 2013

One has to admit that puffing cigarette smoke into the air that other people breath is fairly anti-social. I don't feel moved to spare the feelings of someone who's poisoning the air.

If you ever do have a doctor who castigates parents for smoking around their kids, go ahead and report him. Watch what happens. The AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Lung Association will be on his side.

The tobacco companies will be on your side, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in their credibility in the health field.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
288. bullshit. few smokers puff directly into other people's faces and puffing smoke into the air has
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:19 PM
Apr 2013

less effect on general air quality than wood smoke, auto exhaust, factory exhaust, or any of a number of other things.

but it's only smokers who get the self-righteous treatment from the upper middle classes -- and that's a class thing, because smoking is now mostly a working class/lower class habit and connotes 'moral' failing.

it has nothing to do with health or any realistic analysis of harm.

if a doctor "castigates" his/her patients, i doubt any of those bodies will support him. Being a doctor is not license to berate, demean, abuse and lie to one's patients. If you think it is, you shouldn't be practicing.

in my time working with the public i've been around people who reeked of tobacco smoke, reeked of body odor to the extent i wanted to puke, reeked of perfume -- and never felt the need to be uncivil or lecture any of them as though they were criminals. unless the person lights up in your office, they are not doing *anything* to you and you have no justification for your incivility.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
293. One doesn't need to puff in my face.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:57 PM
Apr 2013

I can't count how many times I've been driving along, and the guy in the car in front of me is smoking, and I can smell it. Granted, the little waft that makes it out of his car, down the slipstream, and into mine, isn't going to kill me. But having to breath in what he breathed out is the heighth of discourtesy. The fact they they inevitably toss the butt out the car in a shower of sparks, contributing to the environmental ugliness billions of cigarette butts have caused over the decades, is just another float in the discourtesy parade.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
304. oh wah wah. and smokers don't "inevitably" "toss the butts out in a shower of sparks" either.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:33 PM
Apr 2013

inevitably = always.

moral panic & hysteria.

Drahthaardogs

(6,843 posts)
275. Nicotine is not a carcinogen, as to its potency as a poison
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:27 PM
Apr 2013

the LD 50 is pretty high at about 10 mg/kg for oral, and upwards of 50 mg/kg for dermal contact. If you told me that, I would laugh at you and ask what you were doing during toxicology class.

I guess if you use e-cigs the liquid nicotine might be hazardous to small kids that could potentially drink it, but I am not sure what concentrations most of the e-cig bottles tend to be. I think they vary.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
277. Nice bit of mis-direction, there.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:37 PM
Apr 2013

I never said nicotine is a carcinogen. The carcinogens are in everything else about a cigarette that you inhale along with the nicotine. Nicotine, like opiates and benzodiazipines, causes dependence and tolerance, which is why people get addicted to smoking. In their quest for more nicotine, people inhale all of the carcinogenic compounds I referred to above. Nicotine does have a profound, long-term effect on central and peripheral nervous system function. Neither nicotine, nor the burning carcinogens that waft off the end of a lit cigarette, are healthy, or in any way anything that anyone should put into his body.

So I'm glad you had a good laugh, but you really didn't contribute anything substantive to this discussion.

But thank you for playing...

BTW, do you really think you're the first person to try and get me with a 'gotcha' question?

Drahthaardogs

(6,843 posts)
278. You said it was a poison,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:50 PM
Apr 2013

and that a person poisoned their kids if they touched them, "even if you scrubbed your hands until they bleed".


I also never asked a question that would have "gotcha". I simply pointed out your toxicology needs some remedial attention, cause it does.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
282. One could argue that a lot of the things that we voluntarily put into our bodies
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:03 PM
Apr 2013

are poisons; even things like caffeine. And their effect on the body, increased heart rate, vasoconstriction, etc, are a direct reaction to the body's effort to get them out of the system.

To suggest that nicotine is not a harmful substance, and exposing kids to it is all just fun and games, is unethical.

Drahthaardogs

(6,843 posts)
287. You can die of WATER intoxication
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:17 PM
Apr 2013

but that is not the point. The dose makes the poison was the first statement I ever learned when I started to study toxicology and is attributed to toxicology's founder, Paracelsus.

Technically speaking, since nicotine is produced by plants as a form of self-defense, they are TOXINS, not even POISONs. However, that is really not the point either (although I think it is interesting).


The point is your statement that you are poisoning your kids if you touch them after having a cigarette is not even remotely founded in reality, and I am not big on scaring people with stories of the boogieman, especially when there is enough documented literature about the negative effects of smoking there is no need to move into the realm of falsehoods.

Nicotine is not a particularly good molecule,I will not argue that, because I hate smoking as well (I have asthma so I can do without it).

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
292. abuse can take the form of a doctor using his position of power to berate and demean his
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:53 PM
Apr 2013

patients, for example.

 

Sharpie

(64 posts)
48. Side question... Totally unrelated...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:03 PM
Apr 2013

Would you get offended if they told you to "mind your own fucking business?"

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
85. No. As long as they didn't get offended when I replied:
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:52 PM
Apr 2013

"You brought your child here. If sound medical advice offered for the sake of the health of your children is not what you came for, there's the door! Take them to a provider who doesn't care as much."

Anyone who walks in to my clinic is implicitly asking me to mind their business. If they don't want to follow the advice they presumably came in seeking, there are 15 other people out in the waiting room who will, and are waiting to be seen.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
93. Do you ask them about alcohol, drugs, especially prescription drugs they have lying around
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:04 PM
Apr 2013

the house? As a teacher, unless I see evidence of abuse, and smoking is legal so it's not my job to police what people choose to do legally in their own homes, I do not treat every parent as if they are an abuser. What a paranoid society we have become.

Btw, most people I grew up with were in homes with parents who smoked. Didn't harm them at all. However, those who grew up in alcoholic homes were a totally different story. Also, do you ask them if they fight with their spouses, are they planning on getting a divorce, which political party they belong to? All these things can adversely affect the physical and psychological health of children. Divorce, and as a teacher I can verify this, often has a very debilitating effect on a child. But it is legal and I can't repair marriages although for the sake of children I wish there were no need for divorce. Maybe one day we will have cops to monitor all this stuff to 'protect the children'. What a great society that would be!

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
100. I have different ways of asking.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:22 PM
Apr 2013

If I suspect physical abuse, I might ask the patient: "Do you feel safe at home? Do you feel safe around your family and loved ones?"

Things like that.

I always ask about alcohol, drugs ( illicit and prescribed drugs etc.) Comes with the territory.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
314. No way you are a physician of any sort. You are not the provider, and it is not 'your clinic'.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:12 PM
Apr 2013

This much is as clear as it gets.

robinlynne

(15,481 posts)
64. ok. you hate smoking. in the way I dislike fast driving.seriously? Smokers shouldn't be parents?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:18 PM
Apr 2013

That is the group of people you think should not be parents? I am so glad you are not god defining the world.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
89. This isn't the first time I've had smokers complain because they are, in a sense,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:00 PM
Apr 2013

being relegated to the back of the bus. But their complaints are meaningless.

If I was God, smokers would be relegated to the back of the world.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
259. So you don't mind smoke getting blown into YOUR face then?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:17 PM
Apr 2013

Tell me & other DUers why smoking around kids is NOT harmful then.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
295. is the patient smoking in the doctor's office? no? then the doctor is not getting smoke blown in
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:00 PM
Apr 2013

his face.

and since smoking is basically banned in public places these days, the only place you're going to get smoke blown in your face is outside (in which case you can walk away) or at a party (in which case you can leave if you don't like it).

the doctor went far beyond saying that smoking around kids was harmful. he claimed that even if the parent didn't smoke inside and 'scrubbed until he bled" after smoking the parent was still 'poisoning' his children 'every time he touched them'.

this is absolute bullshit; this is hysteria and moral panic.

it's a doctor's job to question patients about smoking, to suggest and aid quitting, to note harm to children, etc.

it's not a doctor's job to treat his patients like shit while doing that, or to tell them blatant lies.



alp227

(31,962 posts)
303. OK, it is possible to wash nicotine off clothing.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:32 PM
Apr 2013
http://laundry.about.com/od/stainremoval/f/nicotinestains.htm

BUT think about it. Would a smoking parent who wants to follow the law and keep parent's kids healthy want to change clothes and shower AFTER EVERY SMOKE BREAK? I think that's what the doctor wants the parent to realize.
 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
305. touching nicotine doesn't poison you. neither does breathing clothes with smoke smell in them.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:37 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

parents who smoke are *not* "poisoning their children every time they touch them," & to tell them they are is both cruel and irresponsible.

furthermore, it doesn't help them quit, and neither does the doctor's bedside manner.

more likely to make them go out and smoke a half-pack to calm down after being around such a jerk.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
308. Hate to break it to you, Smokey,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:59 PM
Apr 2013

but nicotine is a stimulant, not a sedative. The reason you calm down after smoking is due to your addiction to nicotine, which functionally speaking, is no different than an addiction to heroin. If you go too long without your drug, your body starts to get jittery. Iwantmydrugiwantmydrugiwantmydrug, etc. Then you get a fix, and your body says "Ahhhhh. I have my drug..."

I see variations of your smokers' indignation every day. But I'm not going to refrain from telling my patients, including and especially the parents, to quit smoking.

I find it amusing when the CEO's of Big Tobacco still try their spiel: "There is still no proof..."

But I expect better from real people...

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
310. irrelevant to my post, which said: touching someone with nicotine on your fingers doesn't poison
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:05 PM
Apr 2013

them, and neither does smelling their clothes.

and the condescending tone in your post is just what i'd expect from someone who tells their patients such bullshit.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
313. But I don't want to be exposed to nicotine, neither should you.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:11 PM
Apr 2013

You won't immediately die from being exposed to nicotine, but the effects won't be immediate. plenty of evidence exists of hidden 2nd hand smoke harms.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
317. you don't have to be. nicotine on one's fingers and cigarette smell in one's clothing isn't 2nd-hand
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:16 PM
Apr 2013

smoke, and it's not 'poison'.

you won't die *at all* from having a smoker touch you, even if they touch you a million times over 100 years.

i can't believe i have to argue this point.

the doctor said that *even if* parents smoke outside away from their children, and *even if* they scrub down "till they bleed" they are nevertheless poisoning their children "every time they touch them".

the doctor is hysterical on this subject.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
322. If not in that sense,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:47 PM
Apr 2013

is it a bad influence in general for kids to have smoking parents? Thom Hartmann had said he quit smoking after his first child was born.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
326. is it a bad influence to have judgmental hysterics for parents? how about to have judgmental,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:05 PM
Apr 2013

condescending hysterics for doctors?

or neighbors? or coworkers?

personally i think such types do a hell of a lot more damage than smokers.

they have a witch-hunter's mentality.

kurtzapril4

(1,353 posts)
368. Who blows smoke in their kid's faces?
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 06:24 PM
Apr 2013

I don't know anybody who smokes and has kids that even smokes in their house. I don't know anybody who smokes and has kids that smokes in their car, even if the kids aren't present.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
88. Smokers don't care who they kill.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:57 PM
Apr 2013

If they did, they wouldn't be smokers.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a defensive, angry smoker. Tell them they're killing themselves and others, they inevitably start bleating about their rights.

RobinA

(9,878 posts)
104. Here's What I'M Bleating About
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:24 PM
Apr 2013

You are attacking my father, a wonderful man, a great father, and a smoker. You are calling yourself a pediatrician, A DOCTOR, and you are displaying extreme judgement of the people you are supposed to be helping. You are approaching them in a way that is more about you than it is about helping them, which is unethical in a helping profession.

Here's what I can't stand. Helping profession control freaks who try to bludgeon the people who come to them for help into acquiescence. The first principle of helping is to go where the person you are trying to help is. Calling them a murderer is not going where they are.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
110. I'm not a pediatrician. I'm a primary care provider. And a Physician Assistant, not a doctor.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:33 PM
Apr 2013

I have no doubt your father was a wonderful man. Smoking didn't make him a monster; it just made him a wonderful man who was poisoning himself and anyone within breathing distance. I don't think it's wrong to want people to improve their health. It's kind of why I got into this profession. But it's hard to stay polite these days. There is no one alive who doesn't know that smoking is bad for them. And yet, people take up the habit every day, in defiance of every sound scientific study known to man.

As I posted above, it's the preventable diseases that drive me crazy. They don't have to happen. A little medical education, a little counseling, a little compliance with a treatment plan, and all is done. But it's those few, small easy steps that people refuse to take.

It's crazy-making...

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
116. I wish someone would have said that to my parents when I was a kid.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:45 PM
Apr 2013

The perhaps I wouldn't have the trouble breathing while singing that I have now. In the future, I fear for how my lung capacity will develop, and I am eternally grateful smoking in public places is banned here. It is so much more appealing to go out and eat, or go to the cinema, or even go shopping now, than when I was a child/teenager.

I do know how difficult it is to quit smoking, I've seen my mother try to quit many times, and she has really been in earnest. I think some get more easily addicted, and have a harder time quitting, and since it seems to be genetic, I don't smoke, and drink only rarely. Now, if I could get over my own addiction to fat and sugar, I would be happier, but at least that doesn't harm anyone, since I don't make food for anyone but myself.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
127. I never tell my patients that quitting is going to be easy. Nicotine is the most addictive substance
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:58 PM
Apr 2013

known to man. More people go back to nicotine than go back to heroin. After the Surgeon General's report came out back in the early 1960's, stating smoking may cause cancer, the tobacco companies started adding as many as 2,000 different substances to their tobacco to make it more addictive; 500 of these are toxic all by themselves; including ammonia, which helps the body absorb nicotine more easily, thus becoming addicted faster.

I hope your mother will be successful in quitting, and I'm glad to hear she is trying. Tell her I'm pulling for her. Unless irreversible damage is done, in the form of emphysema or lung cancer, there is hope for at least a little recovery of lung function.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
298. "I've seen my mother try to quit many times" = someone apparently *did* tell her that, & she
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:13 PM
Apr 2013

hasn't quit.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
345. I heard you're a medical assistant, not a PA. There's a big difference. If you're doing the
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:32 AM
Apr 2013

little screening checklists, I bet you're a medical assistant.

Requires a high-school diploma and a training course. Non-licensed.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/medical-assistants.htm

that explains why you think if a smoker touches someone, they're poisoning them.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
362. You've been misinformed. I'm a Physician Assistant.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:26 AM
Apr 2013

No need to tell me there's a big difference. I've lived it. I was a medical assistant for five years before going to PA School. When I graduated, I was granted a license to practice clinical medicine in the State of Washington.

Whoever told you I was a Medical Assistant was correct, after a fashion. But their information is seven years out of date.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
364. It's too bad you think cigarette smoking does no harm.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:31 AM
Apr 2013

I'll leave you to it; enjoy.

Wish I could say it's been a pleasure...

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
365. it's funny you can't address my actual criticism; your claim that smokers poison their children
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:34 AM
Apr 2013

by touching them, *even if* they smoke outside away from their children and scrub themselves until they bleed.

and that you feel entitled to pass on such 'knowledge' as rudely and condescendingly as you've demonstrated here.

no pleasure for me, either, knowing that such types are in medical practice.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
240. Re-read everything this poster has said. It is simply telling people THE TRUTH about their actions.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:01 PM
Apr 2013

It is not judgmental to tell people the truth.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
296. no; the doctor is telling lies to his patients. it's a *lie* that parents who smoke are
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:03 PM
Apr 2013

"poisoning their children" "every time they touch them", even if they don't smoke in the house, even if they 'scrub until they bleed'.

that's a big fat lie and a cruel, nasty one.

REP

(21,691 posts)
338. He's not a doctor. He's a medical assistant; takes BP, makes notes ...
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:06 AM
Apr 2013

But most definitely not a doctor. Not even close.

REP

(21,691 posts)
343. A medical assistant at a low-income clinic, at that.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:53 AM
Apr 2013

He's running his mouth off at poor people who don't have the option to tell him to go fuck himself and walk out the door; essentially, listening to this pompous ass is part of the price they must pay to get healthcare. Disgusting. And he probably thinks its okay to treat people this way because they're poor. Try that mouth on paying/insured patients, and he'd being looking for new employment.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
297. +1. it's about power displays, not helping anyone.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:04 PM
Apr 2013

i had two parents who smoked like chimneys, in the house, in the car, and on family outings. they never 'scrubbed until they bled,' and they hugged me often.

according to the eminent doctor, i should be dead from 'poisoning'.

yet here i am, 60 years later, alive and very healthy.

and my experience was not at all unusual in my generation. and my parents' generation, those chain-smoking morons, were the healthiest generation in american history.

kurtzapril4

(1,353 posts)
369. No kidding!
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 06:37 PM
Apr 2013

My mother died at 88 years old....she was born and raised on a farm that raised wheat, corn, and tobacco. She handled a LOT of tobacco, as a child doing work on the farm, and she started smoking when she was 9. She died of old age. No cancer, no COPD. She broke her ribs when she fell, and never recovered. She just wore out.

My father started smoking at age 13. He quit smoking when he was 92. He died on his 95th birthday, from heart arrhythmia.

So yeah, smoking is bad for you. But apparently, for some people, it's not that bad.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
109. Pill poppers don't care either and since the whole country seems to be on pills of one
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:33 PM
Apr 2013

kind or another, I guess no one cares who they hurt or kill. Just got through trying to get my MIL off some of the pills prescribed to her, pills that nearly killed her, caused her blood sugar to drop so low she nearly went into a coma. Not to mention the others she was given that nearly crippled her. She didn't need any of them at all, as it turned out. I wonder how many seniors who have no one to protect them, simply die from all these pills that are so freely given out.


How about defensive, angry non-smokers who manage to survive around smokers without suffering any adverse affects over an entire life-time?

Extremists always destroy their own cases. People dismiss comments like this entirely. There is a case to be made against smoking, but calling millions of people murderers, especially when most people never see any adverse effects at all, is guaranteed to cause rational people to roll their eyes.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
131. I've heard that before:
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:09 PM
Apr 2013

"Winston Churchill smoked like a chimney, and lived into his 90's!"

What you rarely hear about, though, is that for the last 15 or so years of his life, he was in atrocious health, in pain and severe discomfort much of the time. It was not a desireable quality of life. He had other problems, too: heavy drinking, obesity, etc. But it's all of a piece. Smoking didn't make any of that better.

And it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence: "It won't happen to me!" People say that every day. And they're right. It won't happen to them. It will happen to someone else.

Except when it does happen to you, then you become the 'someone else' for another person.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
137. Same can be said of the air we breathe every day. Plenty of non smokers
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:20 PM
Apr 2013

people who work in beauty parlors, just walking on a street breathing in all the carbon monoxide every day, get cancer. We can't go around living in fear, or in a bubble. The environment we live in is life threatening for many reasons. Just driving is a risk.

And another threat to health is constant stress, so I'll just accept the fact that we will all die sooner or later. We would live longer if we weren't breathing the foul air we breathe, but it's unavoidable. Soon, our drinking water will be toxic if fracking becomes widespread, which it will, there is too much money involved to stop it.

Being free from stress helps a little, so I prefer to not stress out over all the things I know can kill me every day. Living in fear is a terrible way to live. I'd rather live a short, happy life, than be plagued by anger and fear for a longer life.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
147. The crux of your arguement seems to be that the very air can kill you.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:37 PM
Apr 2013

So why bother doing anything to preserve one's health?

Well, we actually have done something about the air. Legislation, environmental regulation, reducing the carbon emissions of cars, etc. And despite the loosening of environmental regulation under the GW B*sh administration, the air quality has rarely been as good as it is now, outside of major industrial regions. Coal country still has huge problems, but by and large, fewer asthmatics in Denver and Albuquerque are collapsing in respiratory distress. People living in LA can actually see the San Gabriel Mountains on more days per year since the 1940's.

We made up our minds to improve things. And we did.

X is Y, so why bother trying? Not an outlook that helped solve problems.

Coming to work every day, I know that every single patient I have is going to die someday. So why bother trying to improve or maintain their health? Hell, I'm going to die someday, so what's the point of trying to live a healthy life? It's just delaying the inevitable...

There's something to be said for quality of life.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
266. The longest living people I've ever known, have been the least likely to stress and obsess
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:33 PM
Apr 2013

over things they can do nothing about. Should we stop driving children in cars eg?

I don't know where you live, but just about everywhere I have lived, not in cities btw, there are environmental hazards related to the way of life we are living. Unless we can live without central heating, cell phones, automobiles, air conditioning, water so much of which is polluted, then we face health risks every day.

Fracking, Monsanto's poisonous weed killers, additives to food which we are not allowed to have labeled, the list is endless.

Yet for some people who have become rabid about it, smoking is the only threat to life. Cancers caused by other agents are ignored by them, to the rabid, anti-smoking contingency, we would all live forever if only the government would ban smoking.

No one said we shouldn't try to minimize the dangers, but focusing on one to such extremes as to accuse millions of people of murder, in itself must be a health hazard to those who alow themselves to be so stressed.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
267. If you'll re-read my posts carefully, you'll notice I never said smoking was the only hazard to
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:42 PM
Apr 2013

health.

However, I did mention, several times, the importance of decreasing the risk of contracting or acquiring preventable diseases. I certainly don't ignore the other causes of cancers. But I do concentrate on the factors that are within my patients' control. We can't do anything directly and immediately about the problem of environmental toxins (although re-read again above about the reductions we've made to these through the legislative process).

I put control of my patients' current and future health into their own hands and re-assure them that this is something they can do now; no waiting, no wishing, no special equipment, no need for a 'yes-you-may' from the government. It can be done now. The power is in your hands.

It's a very life-affirming thing, taking control of one's health, and making the decision to get better.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
268. Then we are not in disagreement.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:48 PM
Apr 2013

I think it is admirable that you care so much about your patients.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
271. I do.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:01 PM
Apr 2013

I love my patients, and I'm not afraid to say so. Even many of my non-compliant patients.

I have one guy, an uncontrolled Diabetic. Nicest guy in the world; I love him to death. I think the whole staff does. But he won't comply with his treatment plan, and he's getting worse all the time. It's heartbreaking. But I'm not giving up on him; I'll give him 100% the next time he comes in. Who knows? Maybe next time will be the breakthrough...

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
272. My fil is a diabetic and I helped take care of him for while after the death of my mil. He
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:08 PM
Apr 2013

too doesn't follow a diet that is healthy for him. But I have to say that all of his care givers have been wonderful, they have been very vigilant about his health and he owes them the fact that he is still here as he often neglects things that could be life-threatening for him.

I'm sure it is heart-breaking when you try so hard and you know the danger to a patient. I really admire people who do this work every day and I hope your caring and persistent will finally bring him around. You sound like a wonderful person!

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
274. Thank you.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:10 PM
Apr 2013

I'm glad we had this talk.

I hope your F-I-L will start complyiing with his nutrition program, and get better...

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
335. Thank you, I am glad also as I got to know a very special person.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:08 PM
Apr 2013

Lol, he's stubborn, but so far, because of all the care he has received, he is okay for now, despite all the goodies he eats!

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
300. you weren't *talking* about smokers, you were talking about smokers who poisoned their
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:18 PM
Apr 2013

children by touching them.

Chemisse

(30,793 posts)
197. You seem to have left your compassion by the wayside.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:18 PM
Apr 2013

Maybe around the place where you picked up the giant ego.

I don't smoke anymore, but I did for 22 years and I remember how much it dominated my life and how incredibly hard it was to quit. I can guarantee that those parents wish they didn't smoke, and already feel guilty about the smoke their kids are exposed to.

Insulting smokers is not helping their children, or anybody really. Nobody is going to change their behavior because of it. So why do you do it?

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
234. As you have already picked up, it's getting harder and harder for me to be compassionate on this
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:55 PM
Apr 2013

subject.

Campaigns to end smoking have been around since before I was born. And yet, every day, someone else takes up the habit.

Ever see those people walking around with the cannisters strapped to their hip? And the cannula up their noses? My first thought when I see them is: "Oh, now you want oxygen? All those years you were smoking, and inhaling carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and every chemical lung irritant known to industrial science, you could have had oxygen for free!"

There's a time for hand-holding. I do a lot of that. There's a time for gentle guidance. I do a lot of that, too. And there's a time to say: "Stop doing that!"

I feel bad that this seems like inflated ego to you. But I don't have all the answers. And every day, my one overriding question to myself when I leave the clinic is: "Did I do good medicine?" Some days, the answer is 'yes'; other days, I admit to myself that something could have been done better. But I'm not stop going to stop imploring my patients to quit smoking. That would be giving up. And I have no interest in seeing the tobacco companies win.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
301. being honest *is* insulting when you do it rudely. as the doctor admits he does.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:21 PM
Apr 2013

the doctor has also admitted he doesn't believe his patients when they tell him they only smoke outside (even though lots of smokers only smoke outiside); ergo, the doc treats his patients like they are liars and disbelieves what they tell him *because* they are smokers.

lying is also insulting, and the doctor tells his patients that they are 'poisoning' their children by touching them, even if the patients smoke outside & 'scrub until they bleed'.

this is a lie. it's insulting, it's demeaning, it's cruel.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
182. You were interested enough to comment.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:09 PM
Apr 2013

I do find it a little strange, though.

When I tell an obese patient with a bad habit of overeating that he needs to moderate his diet and get more exercise, he'll say something like: "Yeah, I know. I really need to lose this weight."

But if I tell a smoker to stop smoking, I'm being self-righteous?

As a medical provider, I don't mind saying that I've got some game. But it's not because I tell my patients what they want to hear. But what they need to hear. If they don't want good medical advice, they're free to stay away.

auntsue

(277 posts)
346. well, yes, smoking is bad
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:38 AM
Apr 2013

i grew up as a first wave baby boomer..................born 1946. My mom, dad and grandpa (who lived with us) all were smokers. In the house, in the car, windows up in cold weather. There was smoking everywhere, including resturants and hospitals. My pediatrician smoked-while examining patients. My mom quit at age 72 due to COPD............lived to 91. I do have some asthma issues, but they could be due to allergies or weight-related. I would think that your education taught you that behavior issues are complex. Rude attitude is not the best method. I knew a woman who put off going to the doctor because her was "always going one about weight". She didn't change doctors---she just didn't go. I worked as a social worker and have helped many people change using behavorial techniques including postitive reinforcment. I hope your comment were metaphorical and that you have some humanity in dealing with your patients.

nadine_mn

(3,702 posts)
372. Your comment about the woman who put off going to the Dr really hit home
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:51 AM
Apr 2013

My grandma died of stomach cancer a few years ago - she was in pain for a long time but didn't go to the Dr because he always berated her for her weight and made her basically feel like shit. By the time she was hospitalized (after a fall) it was too late to do anything.

My current GP is 30 mi away and I live in a metro area but I drive that distance (we moved shortly after I started going to her) because she DOESN'T patronize me or condescend me. We are both adults - I look in the mirror and know I need to lose weight so instead of a lecture we talk about options - nutritionist, moderate exercise until I build up more stamina, etc.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
3. I don't think it's extreme, as long as the doctor's concern isn't extreme
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:20 AM
Apr 2013

and out of proportion w/reality.

I'd prefer to have a doctor who was alert and informed
in regards to any kind of abuse of my child.

When I was much younger I had a dog, someone had
given her to us, she had been abused - I knew nothing
about dogs at the time - and it took someone more
experienced to recognize the abuse, and help me know
how to help her. I thought for a long time that she was
just a bad crazy dog.

If it were my own child, I might have been as blind,
though I hope not.

But there are also people in authority who see abuse
everywhere, even if it's not there, and over-react, putting
families and children through hell.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
4. here is another perfectly good example. a vet. a vet looks at the client as a potential abuser.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:23 AM
Apr 2013

a cop.

these people are TRAINED to look at people in this manner.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
14. It's fine if they know how to use the training. In my case it wasn't a vet, just a friend
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:38 AM
Apr 2013

who understood dogs.

The vet hadn't noticed a thing.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
7. you have an issue about the discussion on that thread, follow every poster that understood
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:30 AM
Apr 2013

and thought what the article was about how some kind of valid point.

if you are pointing to this, to suggestion i am extreme, then there are a lot of other people in that extreme position, right next to me. i expect you to establish attack threads on each and everyone, stalk and harass.

go at it hoss, or let two of these posts of yours be enough and let it go. i have acknowledge you. you really do not need to follow me around with the same stupid ass link

Sekhmets Daughter

(7,515 posts)
63. Are you lost?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:17 PM
Apr 2013

Perhaps trailing through an inner circle of hell?

What does your link have to do with this discussion?

Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #63)

Sekhmets Daughter

(7,515 posts)
221. And this has something to do with doctors
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:41 PM
Apr 2013

being on the alert for child abusing parents...how?

I don't engage in the vitriolic rape wars...I resent them being carried over into other threads. I particularly resent someone who will stalk another from thread to thread in order to do so.

Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #221)

Sekhmets Daughter

(7,515 posts)
232. Well, obviously that's the case for some....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:54 PM
Apr 2013

How absurd. Some are involved in a discussion as to whether smoking parents are child abusers. Others in whether pediatricians are over-stepping boundaries...and still others are demonstrating that they are not in control of their own junk. It would be humorous, if it weren't so sad.

Why anyone would want to prolong the life of a perfectly stupid statement is beyond me....and now you know why I don't get involved in the gender wars here.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
349. Exactly. This OP was for the purpose of justifying the "all men are potential rapists" debacle.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:08 AM
Apr 2013

Who's going to argue with the point that good parents have no reason to resent a pediatrician's concern for his little patients' well-being at home?

This OP may make its author feel speciously vindicated because it's a no-brainer, but it's apples & oranges compared to the "all men are potential rapists" awfulness.

And you're not a stalker; you're a DUer & all threads posted in GD are open to everyone.







chervilant

(8,267 posts)
250. What I find sad
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:25 PM
Apr 2013

is your apparent leap into react mode, as though you personally are being attacked. We are ALL wounded by patriarchy, regardless of gender. For men who are appalled by sexual assault, part of that wound is the knowledge that a significant percentage of your gender brethren commit sexual assaults.

As an educator, I grieve for the survivors of our corrupted and co-opted system of public education, a system designed to quash curiosity and stunt critical thinking skills. Were you to actually READ Susan Brownmiller's iconic "Against Our Will," you might have a better grasp of what she meant --AND you wouldn't take that or other macro-level analyses personally.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
6. It's a poor way to go about your job.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:27 AM
Apr 2013

And how do you know that your pediatrician viewed you as a potential abuser if they didn't say it or assume it. Why do YOU assume that asking the "right" questions is viewing you as a potential abuser? What are some of those "right" questions?

Being vigilant doesn't de facto signify looking at all parents as potential abusers.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
8. it is simple to me cali. i guess it is not to others. not gonna fight over this. OP clear. nt
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:31 AM
Apr 2013

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
31. "Being vigilant doesn't de facto signify looking at all parents as potential abusers."
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:52 AM
Apr 2013

Yes, it does.

They know that the potential is there, which is why they are vigilant.

Violence in the home is frighteningly common. So is rape. That is why these issues require heightened awareness.

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)
325. When my 4 month old
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:01 PM
Apr 2013

fell off the bed in a hotel (I was ON the bed right NEXT to her nursing her and she let go nursing for a second then she rolled SO fast I couldn't catch her - a fat baby who hated to roll and normally never rolled if she could help it...I wasn't expecting it at all) and whacked her head and then screamed so hard she held her breath and passed out...I took her to the ER. The questions I had to answer were very invasive and accusatory. In fact, I had to sign several papers that had to be released to our provincial children's services in case any more head injuries happened they could check if there was a pattern of these injuries on record. This was even after the doctor said she was fine (she woke up minutes after passing out and was fine, just screamed from falling off the bed), she had no bumps on her head or anything, but yet, I was told point blank by the nurses that I had better make sure this NEVER happened again or I could be under suspicion of child abuse. It was an awful feeling knowing that one more slip up could mean losing my kids....So, at least in the ER, they do look at all parents as potential abusers. It's not uncommon, so I can see why the OP might feel that way, especially with regards to certain questions - you know them when you hear them. (some of those questions I was asked were like, "have you ever lost your temper when the baby won't stop crying?" Or "do you find yourself losing control over your emotions with your children?" or "Have you ever treated your child in a way that you regretted?" or "has your baby ever been to the ER for ANY physical injury?&quot

enough

(13,237 posts)
9. I was shocked and dismayed one day when our family doctor
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:31 AM
Apr 2013

asked about guns in the house. (We live in a rural area and in fact do have guns in the house for hunting.) It was during a difficult time when my then teenage daughter was dealing with depression. I started to get sort of huffy and then realized the doctor was doing the right thing in making the danger starkly clear and reminding me of the life and death nature of my responsibility.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
10. i have always appreciated it and never felt affronted by it. but, this is a very good example. nt
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:33 AM
Apr 2013

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)
69. Growing up my mother always said
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:28 PM
Apr 2013

it was good we didn't have guns in the house because she feared in her bouts of depression she would use it on herself. My father (a navy pilot) removed all guns when they had kids because he feared a tragedy involving kids and guns.

Today my mother is the biggest NRA supporter gun nut ever. She believes all kinds of conspiracies, in birther and prepper propaganda and has many guns. She has her grandkids living with her and refuses to listen to my father's requests to rid the house of guns. I wish a doctor would talk to her about this. But she'd probably just go to a different doctor and claim that anyone questioning her was a liberal gun grabber for expressing concern.

enough

(13,237 posts)
371. That's an interesting story, abelenkpe. I wonder how your mother
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 09:39 PM
Apr 2013

came to make that major transition in her life. I don't know how old she is now, but the problem of guns in the house becomes especially difficult with older people if there is any kind of dementia entering into the situation.

When I took care of my very old parents, I got connected with others who were taking care of people with dementia, and I discovered that guns are a major issue in many many families. The danger is acute.

Warpy

(110,913 posts)
358. Sometimes people do need a wakeup call.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 04:38 AM
Apr 2013

I hope you locked the guns up and your daughter is fine now.

Hospital nurses on adult wards have to be alert for spousal abuse, too. It doesn't mean we accuse everyone, we just need to observe bruises and look at a long history of fractures and start asking some questions when an underlying pathology isn't responsible for it.

It's the same thing as being a woman alone in a confined space like an elevator when a man she does not know gets on. Her alertness is heightened and she grips her keys just a little harder. No, not every man is a rapist, relatively few are. However, if one is, she needs to be ready to defend herself.

I wish we lived in a perfect world where suspicion never entered our minds. However, we live in this one.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
17. I think there's a fine line between the doctor being alert and informed,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:40 AM
Apr 2013

and asking the right questions, and treating the parent
with suspicion. Most parents are insecure enough as
it is.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
18. then at that point a client has the choice to say, screw that doctor, i will find a different one.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:41 AM
Apr 2013

that does not take away from the position i put out.

doctors are not always a good fit.

Wait Wut

(8,492 posts)
52. Not all abuse is physical.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:05 PM
Apr 2013

And, not all physical abuse is obvious. Doctors asking 'routine' questions of parents and children does no harm. I was an unwed, teen mom with a (still, at 30) uncoordinated son. He was always covered in bruises. I had no problem with his doctor asking some very straightforward questions. When he asked if he could spend a few minutes alone with my son, I didn't protest. When the door opened and the doctor came out laughing and my son had that typical big grin on his face, I thanked the doctor and shared a tiny, tiny bit of my childhood with him.

He stopped laughing. His partner had been my doctor when I was my son's age. There were no questions asked when I was a child.

Let them ask questions. If it gives one child a voice, it's worth the discomfort of the parents.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
83. seabeyond
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:49 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:24 PM - Edit history (2)

I think the problem some of us have with the "all men are potential rapists" concept is that those of us who could never imagine raping feel as though a defect has been assigned to us by gender. I can only speak for myself, but for me, sexual arousal is triggered by affection, intimacy, tenderness... I'd make a shitty rapist because my body wouldn't cooperate. Unfortunately some men can go there. I don't want to be placed in that group simply because I'm a man.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
87. I don't want to be placed in that group simply because I'm a man.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:55 PM
Apr 2013

this is the best, and from the heart. i feel it. i know it. i say these to boys, be it being white or boys. and i feel the same from them. it goes straight to a mothers heart. and there are bigger lessons than that. for them to understand so they can grow, as people.

i get that.

now....

women have potential to use a man as a wallet. this is a huge one for me. i do not want ot hear it about myself. as a female. i cringe seeing women with this attitude. feel the same. it is using. the man/woman not a person, but a thing to be used.

i still acknowledge.

thank you for that last sentence you wrote.

my kids have gone past it. so maybe i have forgotten that last sentence. said just as you did.

i think what you do not get though, is never.... never have i see the possibility with almost ALL the men and boys in my life over the lifetime.

so saying this is not seeing the men as possibly being that. knowing them, and their character, knowing they are not.

just as, i would never harm the boys. not intentionally, ever. mentally, physically or spiritually.

but.... for me, making a big deal about this on du is the problem. i meant what i said. no more or no less. men keep bring it up. women are not. you are seeing it because men keep making a bigger deal of it than any woman. no one said a damn thing until arley brought it up.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
96. Cool
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:11 PM
Apr 2013

There's no denying history in regard to male abuse and domination of women. That said, I'd like to think most modern men (especially on this board) would like to see the same world you would.

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
70. I am glad you broke the circle, then
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:29 PM
Apr 2013

If you're alluding to being abused as a child, I am glad you had the strength to break that chain. It is an accomplishment to be proud of.

siligut

(12,272 posts)
19. There are obstacles all along the way
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:42 AM
Apr 2013

Yes, it should be done but once abuse is suspected, the path to actually helping the child is not at all straight-forward.

You have mental-illness, cultural differences, love despite the abuse, never enough money allocated, the services to help are sparse or weak or sometimes also abusive and it goes on and on. Very frustrating work.

siligut

(12,272 posts)
56. Yes, a pediatrician suspects abuse
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:07 PM
Apr 2013

And then what runs through his or her mind is the hell he/she went through the last three times the suspicion was investigated.

Sorry to tell you that selective perception becomes a kind of protective mechanism and self-survival starts to take precedent.

I have heard it called a can of worms more than a few times.

Just explaining to you why such a simple measure as you suggest has not put a dent in abuse.

Arkansas Granny

(31,483 posts)
21. The only time I felt that anyone looked at me as a potential abuser was when my daughter
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:43 AM
Apr 2013

required two trips to the emergency room in the same week for childhood accidents and that was cleared up when she explained to them how the accidents happened. She was quite young, but she had great language skills.

I had the same pediatrician for all of my children and we had developed a very good relationship over the years. I kept every appointment, got all their vaccinations on schedule and asked enough questions that you would have thought I was writing a book. Not once did he ask any questions or make any statements that made me feel he was evaluating me as a potential abuser.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
23. did he ask the kid about his diet, how much exercise, tv.... and knowing you as a parent, yes,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:46 AM
Apr 2013

as a doctor gets to know you the question lessen. of course.

the times the doctor did not know you, they talk to your daughter, did their job. as you would expect.

i hear ya on your post. but it still is. and we expect it of our doctors.

Response to seabeyond (Reply #23)

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
186. Haha, same!
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:11 PM
Apr 2013

As a child, I did something really dumb that left bruises on my face. My mom got paranoid, knowing the school might freak out. Felt really bad about it. So I went to my teachers and told them straight up what I'd done, and that I was afraid they would think my parents did something. They laughed and said they understood, kids will be kids. Felt a lot of relief after telling my mom.

My doctor was like yours, good relationship and no facetious questions.

Kali

(54,990 posts)
22. somebody can't alert in GD for 24 hours
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:44 AM
Apr 2013

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:30 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

no more, no less. a pediatrian looks at ALL parents as POTENTIAL abusers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022613507

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

For god sake do we really need another rebuttal thread about potential abusers, ie "all men are potential rapists." This should be a reply to an existing post on the topic. These repeated gender war posts are making DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:37 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: For God's sake, if you don't like a thread, use Skinner's slick 'Hide-a-thread' thingy. Simple, no?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm only involved in this thread, know nothing about rebuttal threads. I don't see a problem with her opinion, and that's what it is, whether you like it or not.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Get over yourself.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I really don't see anything wrong here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: trash thread or ignore, this post is FINE

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
24. All women are potential child murderers.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:47 AM
Apr 2013

That's more of a reflection of the "all men are potential rapists" phrasing, and I think you would agree, pretty offensive. It's a statement that's clearly meant to cast a whole gender in a negative light, and stir up anger.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
26. no. it is not. when are a couple percentage higher in baby murder up to a year older. then men
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:49 AM
Apr 2013

take the lead in murdering children.

men are almost always the rapist
a parent is almost always the abuser.

a mother is not almost always a child murderer.

so i disagree.

that being said.

ok. and no, not offended.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
32. fuckin for real? what, i should lie, pretend otherwise, not challenge soemthing incorrect or
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:52 AM
Apr 2013

you stomp away with this?

Response to seabeyond (Reply #41)

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
129. No, you're just playing phone psychic, but without the phone.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:01 PM
Apr 2013

You are acting like you can read people's minds. Very common cause of conflict in marriages.

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #29)

Response to seabeyond (Reply #39)

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
73. I find we often minimize or trivialize the irrelevant..
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:34 PM
Apr 2013

I find we often minimize or trivialize the irrelevant when that is all we have left in our pocket. However, I have no doubt you'll find a path on which to rationalize your own irrelevant contribution... to yourself at least, if not in public.

Response to LanternWaste (Reply #73)

Response to EOTE (Reply #178)

Response to bettyellen (Reply #201)

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
208. The thread is actually informative...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:32 PM
Apr 2013

And honest.
A few people here actually learned something.
Can't say the same about some shit stirring
non-reality based OPs you've championed here.
Anyway- way to attack your fellow ESL DUers! Your ethnocentric concerns are duly noted.

Response to bettyellen (Reply #208)

Response to bettyellen (Reply #217)

Response to bettyellen (Reply #217)

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
242. Yet you didn't realize this was about your EQ?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:03 PM
Apr 2013

So, I guess we can shave a point off your comprehension score.

Response to bettyellen (Reply #242)

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
258. Another point off for comprehension!
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:10 PM
Apr 2013

Nudity itself equaling oppression?
No one said that. No one. Silly!
Why do you get so pissed at stuff that never actually happened?

Response to bettyellen (Reply #258)

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
263. It's kind of sad that you take people explaining concepts
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:27 PM
Apr 2013

So personally. Analogies make you angry.
This seems to be the root of your comprehension issues as well.
We can only lead you to water...

Response to bettyellen (Reply #263)

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
44. That's your argument?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:01 PM
Apr 2013

That women are only more likely to be the culprit when the victim is below a certain age?

That's an awfully thin (and vehemently-stated) argument for someone who is not offended.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
75. religious women. all potential child murderers
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:37 PM
Apr 2013

they pray. get lonely. stress from having many babies. PTSD

so agree. everyone. everything. potential something.

we need to not offend. we need. we need to help these women. so we don't have more Andrea Yates. Dena Schlosser. Deanna Laney. Murderers. you care? we need to talk about this, discuss.

Julia Lovemore. took bible. ripped pages. shoved them in daughters mouth. daughter Faith is dead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212227/NHS-blunders-allowed-religious-fanatic-mother-kill-week-old-baby-stuffing-pages-Bible-mouth.html

It's known. there are studies. we cite them, learn, talk about. make change.


http://today.uchc.edu/headlines/2004/dec04/religiosity.html

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
40. I don't see it that way. Post-partum psychosis is a very serious condition.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:57 AM
Apr 2013

Any OB/Gyn who didn't ask questions to make sure new moms weren't experiencing post-partum depression would be extremely negligent.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
30. Do they remind you and others of this?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:52 AM
Apr 2013

Like when you go into the office is there a note handed you that you are a potential child abuser?

All women are potential liars about rape as well - see recent cases brought up here on DU - is it extreme to point that out?

All humans are potential x/y/z - so....what is the point again?



 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
35. you would be wrong. 2-3% of rapes are false claims per U.S., england and australia.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:55 AM
Apr 2013

FBI statistics
FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. In contrast, the average rate of unfounded reports for "Index crimes" tracked by the FBI is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner says that:
This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]
[edit]British Home Office study (2005)

A 2005 study, "A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases" was the largest and most rigorous study to date commissioned by the British Home Office on UK rape crime, from the initial reporting of a rape through to legal prosecutions. The study was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, police departments classified 8% as false reports.[5]
The researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation. Closer analysis of this category applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation and excluding cases where the application of the cases where confirmation of the designation was uncertain reduced the percentage of false reports to 3%. The researchers concluded that "one cannot take all police designations at face value" and that "[t]here is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors." Moreover, they added:

The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated.[6][7][8]

[edit]Police in Victoria, Australia
Another large-scale study was conducted in Australia, with 850 rapes reported to the Victoria police between 2000 and 2003 (Heenan & Murray, 2006). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the researchers examined 812 cases with sufficient information to make an appropriate determination, and found that 2.1% of these were classified by police as false reports. All of these complainants were then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape


so no, you would be wrong. that would not be a comparable statement. you actually have to have a truth backing up this statement.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
45. Ah...and how many parents actually abuse their kids? How many with guns hurt others?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:01 PM
Apr 2013

So it is only on some things. Like...rape and abuse that you claim this idea of seeing people as a potential X works?

How convenient. From a man's point of view if I worry about false rape claims, or gold diggers, etc and apply it that does not work. Only against women and kids.

Got it.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
328. Your stats are right, very few women who are raped make false claims I posted a graphic on
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:22 PM
Apr 2013

that myself in the feminists forum. Its also true that very few men rape and very few parents abuse their children percentage wise. If we are going to regard even cases where small percentages of certain cohorts of people do things as "All X group of people are potential actors of some bad activity" that persons comparison works, and we can continue:

All people are potential murderers, or we can say all women are potential murderers, or all men are potential murderers or all X are potential murderers where X is any ethnicity or orientation or religion.

All people are potential robbers and thieves or we can say all women are potential robbers and thieves, or all men are potential robbers and thieves or all X are potential robbers and thieves where X is any ethnicity or orientation or religion.

I think these kinds of assertions are all inflammatory and intentionally offensive. No pediatrician gave me the impression they regarded me as a potential abuser of my child. If they had, in that moment they would have been my ex-pediatrician. If their profession requires them to be on the lookout for abuse, every one I came in contact with had the tact and people skills to do whatever checks they did without labeling me a potential abuser.

The shocking thing is that anyone is surprised that people take offense when we say to someone "Because of the gender, race, ethnicity, or religion you are, I regard you as a potential actor of a bad thing."

That is pretty close to the generic definition of prejudice. "In recent times, the word has come to be most often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
46. Next up: young black males are potential criminals.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:02 PM
Apr 2013


Getting tired of seeing this crap. Do I have to trash the word "potential"?

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
59. well if they fit a certain percent, us white folks should be scared of them
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:10 PM
Apr 2013

and it will be perfectly OK since there are some stats to back it up.

"All black men are potential robbers and welfare cheaters" would probably work with some.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
92. "Do they remind you and others of this?" you might talk to the MEN about this since they are almost
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:03 PM
Apr 2013

exclusively the ones that bring this up.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
113. and for you it keeps come back to men
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:38 PM
Apr 2013

Maybe when you get over your anger/etc towards men you might be able to have real conversations about feminism here on DU.

Until then - keep making it about men and DU.

How many threads have you posted about women being oppressed in the world in GD in the last few months?

Always about the 'men' and 'men on DU' who need to 'get it' and learn more. As though you want to educate us constantly on how we are not 'getting it' when it comes to women being oppressed.

We do. But we also get it is happening outside, in the real world, all over the world. And spending time here, on DU, bashing each other because some think we don't get it and need to learn more is not helping anyone.

Why can't we all be on the same side on an issue?

I am pro-choice. I care about the rights of women, men, gays, the disabled.

You post in a group called the History of Feminism - and yet when I have read there I don't see anything about it's history, mostly DU and the people here. Maybe it should be the history of feminism on DU.

I can post a ton of threads relevant to women and their issues in this world from news sources all over the place...and you can hear a pin drop in those threads unless there are breasts mentioned maybe. Or dongles. Or if there is any way possible to indict the men (and some women) here on DU and complain that you are being victimized by the rest of us.

You wonder why some people on DU are upset over feminism? It is not because they don't care about the issue - it is because of how a few vocal people here express themselves and turn and issue we all care about into something about themselves and while doing so rip many in the community here over it.








ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
133. Wow
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:14 PM
Apr 2013

You honestly see things that way? I may not participate much in GD, but I do pay attention. I've posted plenty of history, and topics history has affected in HOF. You sir, churn shit up as much as the next person. In fact you're rather clever at it.

And that's just the perspective that's missing in these GD threads. History. I could post a ton of threads on women's issues as seen by a mainstream feminist perspective and they'd either drop, or turn into these ridiculous little wars. And that's mainstream, play nicer feminism.

I personally don't are who is 'upset' over feminism. Someone is always upset over feminism, feminism by its nature of activism and challenges of society, HAS to upset people. One gets used to it. People have died over it. We still change the world.

You can't be a feminist and have thin skin. You can't be a feminist and 'not upset' the tender feelings of--somebody. And the History of Feminism, and I'm not talking about the group, shows this clearly.

If you're talking about just Democratic Underground, well there is a wide range of things to be upset over on any discussion board.


ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
141. I'm having a WTF moment
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:25 PM
Apr 2013

Seeing the usual suspects who clearly are into derailing the original topic show up with the usual bullshit.

Does clever snark a discussion make? I have to figure out a way to turn that question into a Koan. Or a least a Limerick.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
189. Facts are pesky things, aren't they?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apr 2013

I've never heard someone pronounce so loudly and proudly that they intend to remain ignorant.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
166. Hmmm maybe you should look at what you are saying
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:53 PM
Apr 2013

"Someone is always upset over feminism, feminism by its nature of activism and challenges of society, HAS to upset people. One gets used to it. People have died over it. We still change the world. "

So that 'someone' is 'always' people here at DU?

You think you are challenging society but the only ones being challenged are here on DU - the very people who are on your side about the topic.

You don't change the world by condemning the very people on your side trying to help with the issue. If your idea of changing the world is yelling about people here and not being pure enough. You need to get out more.

One way you could help is by exposing the problems we all face - whether it be men, women, children - the people most held down and oppressed by those in power.

But instead it comes down to how bad DU'ers are over dongles, ford ads, jokes, etc and so on and instead of spending hours a day researching news stories that affect all such groups you spend time on how some here on your side don't fully agree with you.

Those who say they are spending the most time focusing on feminism and say they care about it are not spending their time on real issues regarding feminist issues, they are spending their time on this message board attacking the people who are on their side trying to help them.

From protecting your body and your choice, to exposing things like recent legislation in Alaska and other places - those in HOF don't care. Show me some recent posts over the last few months by this group of feminists exposing the problems out there that women have to face versus how many posts they have made over things like dongles, doors, etc.

Get over it. Us 'men' here care about the same issues you do. Where have any of you been on subjects that affect women elsewhere in the world (other then chiming in when it comes to women showing their breasts)?

I want equality for all. I want us, we the people, to have more power and that women are not just some byproduct of a group of religious nutjobs. But here I am, and other people here, being seen as the enemy.

The men of DU are the problem - and if you don't believe that, spend some time in HOF where they discuss the people here more than they ever have the actual History of Feminism.

ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
211. No, not at all
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:35 PM
Apr 2013

DU is a very small part of my life and my activism. You are talking about GD I think.

I'm a very active member of HOF. I know what I post. I'm aware of what I personally care about and actively work for. I rarely come out because its essentially useless. If I choose to spend the time, for instance, I could talk you down and we could come to some sort of reasonable accommodation regarding opinions and how they are expressed. I'm sure we agree on any number of things.

(BTW, in your response statement to me here there are a number of misconceptions and untruths)

I do this once in a while, it's not difficult. What I find most problematic is when actual privilege is some how being challenged, one of the roots of all misogynist legislation--there's a very common 'it's isn't me' reaction.

Then out come the plethora of threads--most of which I don't participate in--wiith the snark offs, derailing of the topic, same group of people over and over and no actual discussion.

This thread for instance is apparently seen as having a hidden agenda. Although looking at the responses, most people are staying on topic.

I glad 'you men' care about the same things, although I will say the men in my life already do. What is it, then exactly, do I need to get over?

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
237. Ok, you know what - let's just boil it down to something really simple
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:59 PM
Apr 2013

Do you think that men here on DU care about issues of feminism or not?

That is what this whole thing boils down to.

Men who say they care, want to help, etc - and others telling them they don't care because of some response they have made in some thread somewhere.

I don't spend hours a day out of fun looking for threads to post - and many of those threads directly impact women - just for fun.

I do so because I want my daughter to grow up in a better world than I did. Same for my son - who is in the army and this whole Korea thing may end up having him called backed to active duty.

And it will be and his wife there caring for their kids and trying to raise them most impacted if we go to war.

I know what she went through last time he was called to war. And I don't recall any feminists here being all that concerned over the issues she faced at the time.

There are a whole plethora of things going on today that affect not only the rights of women but women who are there day to day struggling to make the best of things.

Time after time though, here on DU, what is discussed is how the 'men' of DU react - or don't react - to something.

If I say something about a 'dongle' and post a thread about it...damn well bet there will be a few here that jump in with both feet ripping me and others over it. When it comes to actually helping others and bringing to light the issues people face day to day??? Nope. Not a damn word.

I could post a thread about military wives and what they go through - but I am sure it would he hijacked and that those women would be told here that were idiots for being home makers and trying to take care of their kids. I don't know anymore what is right to post or say about anything because everything is suspect.

It does not matter what me or anyone else says anymore - all men are bad, all women are victims, and if you don't agree then you need to learn more.

Some of us here have gotten tired of that crap and call it out when we see it.

ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
251. I don't know honestly.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:27 PM
Apr 2013

There are many men who fight sexism, who are supportive of women's rights, who post righteous things in support of women. Some even agree with HOF members. But all men here at DU? I have no idea unless they've specifically indicated one way or the other.

I had a daughter in active duty in Afghanistan, and a son in Iraq, so I understand you there--especially the fear; I've been there, and issues of gender aside I offer you any support i can give.

I know about military issues. My now ex-military daughter is now a stay at home Mom who I admire enthusiastically.

I think most people, not just men are not educated on feminist history. I think If I posted something 'controversial' without easy to read historical context, it would generate more controversy than the topic warrants, recent threads here being no exception. This is why I don't join these threads. I have, apparently a different background of education, and neither time or inclination to argue.

Now, derailment is another issue, that whole Richards thing was more complex than 'dongles' yet that's the term I hear over and over to define it.

I'm a feminist who believes we labor under an inherently oppressive system we call patriarchy, but I also understand we all suffer from the human condition so terms like 'good' and 'bad' are meaningless when applied wholesale to gender. In fact I object strenuously to judgement statements like "all men are dogs"--I only hear THAT from non-feminists in any general conversation. I wouldn't let that slide any more that I would someone saying "all women are bitches"

I WOULD argue about the relative harm and intent of the words, in a productive debate.

Sissyk

(12,665 posts)
241. You need to take a bow! Awesome.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:03 PM
Apr 2013

I've come to believe that the dozen or two that do nothing but bitch about men, and us supposedly men worshipers, have nothing to do IRL to help those in need so they spend their time here or elsewhere on the web thinking they are helping. And/or, they have relationships with their own husbands where they cannot speak out or be heard, so they take it out on some here on this site. They claim you and others post frame bait threads but turn right the fuck around and do the same fucking thing.

Since I've come to believe that, I've started to feel sorry for them. That keeps me from getting angry at some of the stuff I read here.

It's funny. At the women's shelter the other day, I mentioned a topic of conversation that had come up here with a woman I have gotten to know. She looked at me like I had grown horns. One of those "what the fuck are you talking about" looks. That's when I realized that I've been spending way too much time here on trivial matters such as dongles and tits.

Another thing, I've been raped. A long time ago. You know pretty much the only times I even think about it? Here; and when working with women at the shelter that have been raped. Do I think about it walking down the street? No. Do I look at every man as if they are potential rapist? No. I also have enough brain power about me to know that there is a handy dandy little feature on this site that can keep me from reading threads that may trigger, or really piss me off.

Back to the thread. The only time my son's pediatrician ask anything out of the ordinary was when my son at 13 received a black eye from getting hit with a golf club. From his father. Obviously, an accident. Since the doc had never had a reason to question us because our son was healthy and happy, it was not even an issue.

I think I'm babbling, so I'll stop now.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
143. What does that even mean?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:31 PM
Apr 2013

"who brought it up? arley. a man. truth dude. it was not a feminist."

You brought the whole thing up in your post. What does 'truth dude' even mean?

It was not a feminist. - what are you going on about? You started this thread.

ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
145. The thread is about pediatric physicians and automatic assumptions of abuse.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:34 PM
Apr 2013

It got derailed. Don't be disingenuous. You're a smart fellow.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
222. My three year old can see through this LOL...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:41 PM
Apr 2013

amazing, is that the line you are going to take LOL...




I have a partial solution though to this whole issue-




ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
229. Your three year can read?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:50 PM
Apr 2013

You haven't shown him/her that sweatshirt I hope.


What's your pediatrician think?

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
239. we are working on it...abcmouse.com
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:00 PM
Apr 2013

No, I thought all men would just get that shirt as long as they pass screening by some to-be-formed legal committee...



Our pediatrician says our daughter is doing just great, a year ahead in several developmental areas.

I'll recommend him right here-

Dr. Scott Katz, MD
Plano Pediatric

ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
257. TMI
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:06 PM
Apr 2013

A return snark hit would have been just fine. That was a little rude of me; glad to see you defend your kid.

The sweatshirt is creepy though.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
148. arley started a thread yesterday attacking feminist about always saying, all men are potential rapis
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:38 PM
Apr 2013

no feminist had said a word. he brought it up as a way to rile some about feminists.

alsmost exclusively when we see all men are potential rapists, on du, it is a man accusing feminists.

it is men, reminding men, all the time.

so, you haev issue seeing it on du. talk to the men that keep throwing it out there, to get you riled.

saying, dude. address the people that are actually doing it.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
200. You say "it is men, reminding men, all the time. "
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:21 PM
Apr 2013

And then some other things which I am not sure what they mean like:

"saying, dude. address the people that are actually doing it."

Sea - as much as I might battle with you on here, I do care about you and yours. Us 'men' here on DU *DO* care about the rights of women and many others.

I preach it all the time - from your body your choice to posting the stories I do.

And yet, somehow, I and others keep being the enemy here.

You and others have hijacked the conversation to be about you personally and what you have went through and you ignore all the other women out there.

And men. I was raped as a child. From the time I was 8 years old for many years.

I have many reasons to be angry and upset. And I am. But not at people here who had nothing to do with it.

I don't think someone making some sexual joke about a dongle are somehow out to get me, don't care, etc.

I get that what may be funny to others may not be to me. When my mom died I could not watch any show that had anything to do with death in it - and was shocked about how many had such topics as their main themes.

Here on DU there are so many open and honest liberal people who care about the issues and we get our asses handed to us by a few.

You don't have to stay here. Neither do I. If you really believe the men, and often women, here don't care about sexism why not go somewhere else?

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
223. you want to stop hearing all men are potential rapist, tell men to quit saying, all men are potentia
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:42 PM
Apr 2013

rapist.

that simple

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
256. And, yet, here you are,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:04 PM
Apr 2013
being defensive, derisive AND dismissive; because you seem to take much of what has transpired in GD re: this issue personally.

Might you step back and read some of the resources recommended on some of these threads?

You seem to be a regular contributor to this website. You've certainly asserted multiple times that you are pro-choice, and that you care about equal rights. SURELY, you can get beyond making this personal and try to understand a different perspective?

I encourage you to read

Against Our Will (Brownmiller)

Beyond Power (French)

Ending the Silence (Thorne-Finch)

The Mermaid and the Minotaur (Dinnerstein)

For Your Own Good (Miller -- actually, anything by Miller)

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
34. Assuming this is in response to the "all men are potential rapists", here is my question.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:53 AM
Apr 2013

Is "all ______ are potential _______" ever an extreme position to hold? How about "all muslims are potential terrorists"? Or "all black men are potential drug dealers"?

I get that, professionally, pediatricians should look for signs of abuse in all patients, which technically means looking at all parents as potential abusers. But I don't think this is an appropriate analogy.

When it comes to groups of people in society, I just don't think it's very helpful to voice broad-brush stereotypes caveated with the world "potential", even though one can argue that they are technically true statements.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
47. IMO it seems to correlate to how common/widespread the problem is.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:03 PM
Apr 2013

Both violence in the home and rape are problems that are extremely common, sadly, so they require extra vigilance.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
102. Vigilance, yes.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:24 PM
Apr 2013

But I still think it is bad choice of words. Here's another example. How would you feel if the CEO of Walmart said "all workers are potential thieves"? Technically, that's true, and retail businesses do sometimes have problems with employee theft. But phrasing it that way sounds like something off of the Romney 47% video.

I think there are better ways to express the commonness of rape and the need for extra vigilance, that don't come off sounding quite as accusatory and potentially offensive.

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
114. I guess if statistics show that workers are overwhelmingly those that steal, then that CEO is right.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:38 PM
Apr 2013

However, should it just happen that workers don't make up 90+% of all those that steal at Walmart, it doesn't make sense to focus only on the workers, does it? However, according to US statistics, 99% of all rapists are men, so it makes sense to focus the suspicion on men, doesn't it?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
121. I'm objecting to the word choice, not the vigilance.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:51 PM
Apr 2013

Why not make the point about rape by saying something like this: "Most rapes are not committed by strangers, they are committed by acquaintances. Therefore, women need to be vigilant about rape, even among men that they know, or men that seem normal and aren't hardened criminals."

That's something that nobody would disagree with or take issue with or be offended by.

Statistically, young black males are much more likely than other demographics to commit violent crimes. And yet many (most) people would find it objectionable if someone said "all young black males are potential murderers". I don't think "all men are rapists" is as offensive as that, but it still seems like a bad choice of words.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
138. dantex. we do nto need to make the point for the most part. men bring this sentence up
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:21 PM
Apr 2013

regularly and then we have to go thru explanations. it is a way to get people riled at us. and again, this time, it was no feminist that mentioned it. it is a man, that is mad at me, that wanted to get people riled at feminists.

this is the comment they use.

maybe i should not tried to explain.... again, after this last dust up. maybe i should have just pointed out how it was a man, again, bringing up all men are potential rapists, to get people mad at feminists.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
157. Fair enough. I don't know the history of who said it first and who claimed what.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:47 PM
Apr 2013

I read this OP as an attempt to explain or justify it.

And honestly, I get where it comes from. I can't promise that if I had a daughter headed off to college, I wouldn't say something like "all men are potential rapists". But still, I don't think it's a constructive way of phrasing that particular point.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
161. i do not think any of us do. in the future, see who brings it up. betcha 100 to 1 it will be a man
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:49 PM
Apr 2013

trying to rile people up about the bad feminists.

i had this thrown at me by men, repeatedly and was clueless what they were talking about. then i understood and was a duh. but, i do not know any woman that goes around saying it. i do know too many men that are repeatedly saying this. and then we feminist go thru this crap... again.

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
152. But where has anyone said "all men are rapists"?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:42 PM
Apr 2013

That all men are potential rapists, that is, that future victims cannot distinguish rapist men from non-rapist men until they rape, that has been said, and is true. That all men benefit from rape, that is, that all men have accrued benefits from the fact that rape is used to keep women as an underclass and men therefore as an upperclass, has also been said, and is true. But that all men are rapists? Do you derive that from the argument that women's consent to sex can never be wholly free and freely given because of the conditioning all women get for simply being women in a rape culture? I haven't seen anyone argue that on DU, so I would like to see a link to that claim. I'm having troubles with my eyes right now, so I may have missed that post.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
175. To my knowledge, nowhere.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:06 PM
Apr 2013

Seabeyond just responded to me that no feminist here has even used the phrase "all men are potential rapists", but that anti-feminists just bring that up to make feminists look bad. I don't know the history, and I'm not going to go searching.

Having said that, I still think that the phrase "all men are potential rapists" is a poor choice of words. Even if it is technically true. I think that the way I phrased last post is more accurate and better. When you use the "all men" phrasing, it is going to make some people feel defensive because it sounds accusatory. It just seems gratuitously inflammatory.

Same with "all men benefit from rape". The accusatory phrasing detracts from the point being made.

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
198. I'm not a big fan of "softening" the way I state what I believe is truth
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:19 PM
Apr 2013

I would have thought the men here were adult enough to realize that if they had never raped, and never intended to rape, it wasn't an accusation against them, but a fact of life for women all around the world. We don't know who might be our rapist. It might be a complete stranger that grab us after dark, but it might equally well be our stepfather, the neighbor boy, our boss, our boyfriend's best friend, the cable guy, our brother, our co-worker, the guy we smile to after seeing him umpteen times at the grocery store, our boyfriend/husband/partner.

One out of every 5 women are raped in the US. One out of every 3 women are raped and or battered in their lifetime. If there are any women who have not modified their behavior because they might be raped, - I wouldn't call them liars, but I would marvel at how they have internalized their behavior modification so that they are not even aware of it themselves. Men who do not realize this reality for women need to look beyond the tip of their own nose and get up and start actually seeing and listening without focusing on their own ego - and they can start right here on DU. When women recount their experiences, believe them. Don't belittle them, say that their experiences aren't real, or don't count, or that they're exceptions. Look at the animosity women face. Try posting on reddit and other fora, pretending to be a women. They'll get an eye opener, and no mistake.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
231. It's not about softening so much as not choosing deliberately inflammatory language.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:51 PM
Apr 2013

I'm sure you understand that "all men are potential rapists" is inflammatory. Yes, everyone understands that it isn't a personal accusation, but the phrase "potential rapist" carries with it negative connotations.

As a feminist, I imagine that you know the importance of language and word choice. If someone said "all women are potentially hysterical", I'm sure you'd object. If someone said "all black males are potential murderers", I'm sure you'd object.

Especially if you actually want to get some men to "start actually seeing and listening without focusing on their own ego". Putting men on the defensive by calling them "potential rapists" is not a great way to get them open their eyes to see your point of view.

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
246. Sometimes the frustration gets so high that I get my back up and I'm ornery just because.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:11 PM
Apr 2013

I do know the importance of language and word choice. I also know that it doesn't seem to matter how we phrase it, some men will take umbrage regardless. Saying it softly, saying it stridently, saying it an reasonable discussion, shouting it in protests... the onus is on men now. SO how about it, I'll keep on saying things my way, and you argue these points your way, and hopefully, we'll manage to change the world.

mercuryblues

(14,491 posts)
261. I'll take my safety over ego every day
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:19 PM
Apr 2013

I think men read the phrase differently than women do.

If I left a store and it was dark out and you left behind me, I have no idea who you are. You can be assured I am going to slow down my pace so you are now in front of me and i can watch where you are going. Because, you see, rapists don't have a big neon green R tattooed on their forehead letting women know the difference between a perfectly nice guy or a rapist. Therefore all strange men are treated as a potential rapist.

Even if my spouse brought you over for dinner. I do not know you, I will be leary of you. If you came over a few days later when my spouse wasn't home, you wouldn't get through the front door.

Complain about symantics all you want I will not jeopardize my safety for ego.

It can't be both ways. Women can't be told to be aware of their surroundings, then take offense when they do. My intent is not to offend you, but to protect me.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
359. No, you wouldn't. Not if you were on the receiving end of inflammatory language like this.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:43 AM
Apr 2013

When you take acts by a small percentage of a group of people and say "You are all potential doers of that act because of your gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc." it is offensive.

Take the comment up thread as an example "All women are potential false rape claim reporters"

Now it's not so funny, right?

As I noted to Seabeyond, I am the person who posted this in the feminists forum http://www.democraticunderground.com/11399518 . I know the percentages of false rape reports are extremely low compared to the incidents of rape. But if we are going to say that even if percentages doing an act by a cohort group are small, we can accuse them of being "Potential doers of said act" that applies.

This is the very essence of prejudice. It is something that any person at any part of the left spectrum should automatically reject.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
50. How about "all ___cops___ are potential ___thugs___" ...and
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:04 PM
Apr 2013

all politicians are potential liars. on and on

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
54. Neither of those statements would be considered
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:06 PM
Apr 2013

remotely controversial here.

Even if you removed "potential."

ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
154. I could swear those very words HAVE been used
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:46 PM
Apr 2013

Especially for police officers. It's Why a couple of them left here.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
225. oh, cop hatred is not a violation of community norms here.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:44 PM
Apr 2013

Jury system has spoken loud and clear on that.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
68. Yep
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:28 PM
Apr 2013

Everyone agrees pediatricians should be vigilant. Sadly, children are often abused by parents and guardians. My issues and questions with the related "all men are potential rapists" theory are

Is it true, why, and what should be done about it?

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
94. What do you think the theory means?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:05 PM
Apr 2013

It does not mean that all men are future rapists. Or that all men are innately capable of rape. Or that all men would probably rape if they could get away with it.

It means that women need to realize the majority of rapists aren't the scary abductors on the street. It means that a rapist can be that scary stranger or a rapist can be "regular ole man". An uncle, a dad, a stepdad, a boyfriend, a husband, a neighbor, a classmate, an acquaintance; and since 80% of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by someone the woman knows, all the "stranger danger" precautions don't mean squat in real life situations. I myself was raised on the stranger danger model and was sexually assaulted in the 1960s by two uncles and didn't say a word to anyone. I raised my daughter in the 1990s, and in concurrence with all the public education warning her about how to protect herself out on the streets, I made sure that she had the awareness to protect herself domestically, as well.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
99. First
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:21 PM
Apr 2013

let me say I'm terribly sorry for what happened to you. Shit! I'll admit my understanding of this issue is incomplete. As I've never been a victim, and find the act of rape repugnant, I've mostly assumed it was an aberration committed by deviates. I'll try to be more aware of how pervasive it is.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
108. Thanks for this! I think a lot of the problem is that it is a glib slogan
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:31 PM
Apr 2013

and the word potential has multiple meanings. It's not a phrase that I have ever used or intend to use.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
306. It was the best thing you could do for her...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:53 PM
Apr 2013

to teach her that "stranger danger" is not the only danger for women.

If my mother had taught me that, I would never have gotten raped.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
43. are you saying you disagree with Op and it is extreme? then there is a lotta lotta extreme in this
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:01 PM
Apr 2013

world.

if the vast majority is extreme, does that really define it as extreme? or the norm?

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
76. I'd imagine that confusing mere concern with the melodrama of paranoia...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:37 PM
Apr 2013

I'd imagine that confusing mere concern with the melodrama of paranoia is also "no good"

siligut

(12,272 posts)
80. Do you get weighed every time you see your MD?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:46 PM
Apr 2013

For most people the answer to this question is "Yes". The reason being is that, that little information, viewed as a trend, can tell a doctor some very important things about your general health.

Same thing with screening for abuse. Simple thing to do and can make a big difference.

kdmorris

(5,649 posts)
49. Only if there are INDICATORS for abuse
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:04 PM
Apr 2013

like bruises, cuts, scrapes, etc that are not explainable... a child that is withdrawn, malnourished, etc.

In the 25 years that I've been a mother, no pediatrician, teacher or principle has ever looked at me as a potential abuser. Sorry, this is a straw man argument.

HappyMe

(20,277 posts)
62. I agree.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:13 PM
Apr 2013

My pediatrician never once asked anything that would even remotely suggest that they suspected abuse of any kind. Nor did any teachers, other parents or anybody really.

Foolish straw man.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
204. Research shows they were missing abuse that way!
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:26 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry- protocalls have been updated in the past 25 years. And teachers and others check in with kids all the time and parents have no idea.

mercuryblues

(14,491 posts)
360. bingo
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:29 AM
Apr 2013

I remember the first time I realized what my kid's Dr was asking. It had been raining here for about a week and it was time for my then 3 year old checkup. He noticed that there were no bruises on my child at all. His comment was something like, Wow no brusises on his shins? I giggled and reminded him that the rain has kept us from playing outside.

Dr's are looking for signs of abuse, even if you don't personally realize it.



ohiosmith

(24,262 posts)
103. This post was altered on! The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand!
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:24 PM
Apr 2013

At Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:43 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Posts like these remind me of Clark Griswold.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2613828

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This person is calling seabeyond crazy. Yes, I know that she is not the most popular person on DU, but still this is a personal attack. Let's all do our part to make DU a little bit nicer place for everyone.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:21 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is possible... just barely possible... that RiffRandell does not think that hiding his/her post makes DU a nicer place for "everyone"
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: poster isn't calling Seabeyond crazy, they're calling the post crazy.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't believe this person is calling the author crazy. Just not accurate.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter is wrong, the poster is not calling seabeyond crazy.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post does not call seabeyond crazy! If you want to make DU a "nicer" place, don't start flame wars then freak when members call bullshit! Leave the post!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
66. "I'm glad the staff were as thorough as they were in ruling me, or anyone else out as a cause."
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:20 PM
Apr 2013

About three years ago, my mother called me and told me that she had fallen and broken her wrist. I went to her place and from there, we drove to the ER. Aside from the obvious, no real complications were present, and when we left early the next morning, she told me that an office worker, an ER nurse, and the attending doctor all pointedly and repeatedly asked her if I had anything to do with it.

When she told me that, my first reaction was "I'm glad the staff were as thorough as they were in ruling me, or anyone else out specifically as a cause of her injury." It would have been petulant and reactionary for me to allow myself to get upset over the staff taking common-sense and practical precautions.

I was a potential elder-abuser until ruled out, and not having ruled me out would have been an ethical negligence on the part of the ER staff.

haikugal

(6,476 posts)
81. Indeed...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:47 PM
Apr 2013

I'm now an elder and broke my wrist a couple of months ago...so from being a parent of an accident prone child who was rightly scrutinized to being an accident prone elder...full circle. I'm glad our professionals are alert to possibilities. I have no problem with the OP pointing out the obvious and I think the whiners need to "get over themselves!"

RobinA

(9,878 posts)
95. Sans Some Kind of Reason
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:06 PM
Apr 2013

to suspect you, I would be using a different ER from then on. You might have found yourself feeling a bit petulant had they continued to think it was you - still without any evidence.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
119. hey did what they were supposed to do-- rule me out.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:49 PM
Apr 2013

"You might have found yourself feeling a bit petulant had they continued to think it was you ..."

Yet they did not... they did however, do what they were supposed to do-- rule me out as a potential abuser, which is what I in fact was, until ruled out.

I think a many poster are having a rather difficult time understanding what the word 'potential' means.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
168. Well, about what 'potential' means. In the story about the doctors and your injured mother
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:56 PM
Apr 2013

the doctors are not in fact checking to see if you are a potential abuser, they were asking if you had already committed abuse which caused an actual injury. Had you been responsible, you would have been an abuser, not a potential abuser. So the word does not really apply to the story you told. They inquired to see if you had done, not if you potentially might.
po·ten·tial
/pəˈtenCHəl/
Adjective
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.


 

4Q2u2

(1,406 posts)
98. Why?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:18 PM
Apr 2013

I thought we had the presumption of innocence in this country, and having the Medical community subvert the Constitution for the Police Dept is okay. This is the Nanny State that is far more dangerous than Blomberg's Soda Crapola. We just smile and wave as our entire country becomes a police state hell bent on making things perfect. We bemoan on DU daily the amount of people in prisons but are more than happy to have someone who is supposed to be an advocate for us, serve another master, the police in this capacity.
Our mindset has been transformed by Government and society, always thinking the worst of our fellow persons. When the truth is closer to all people are potential hero's, helpers, and solid good ernest citizens. Not rapists, abusers, or killers.


Terrible thread and all the ones like it.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
112. The ER staff was advocating for their patient. LanternWaste wasn't the patient. The ER
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:38 PM
Apr 2013

staff had no obligation to him/her but to the mother.

Elder abuse is real and a huge problem and most abuse of the elderly is committed by a family member.

 

4Q2u2

(1,406 posts)
128. But it was his Presumption of Innocence
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:59 PM
Apr 2013

All instances of abuse, rape and murder are real. On the total overall population it is not huge, and definitely not huge enough for total shifts in ideals or rights. Nor is it huge enough that we wholly indict entire populations and employ the medical profession as agents for the police. To think of your fellow persons in such a negative fashion and only potential criminals is not an ideal that I am comfortable with. Are you? Where is the common decency not to mention basic fundamental rights?

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
294. Could you squeeze any more Fox News talking points into this? I bet you could.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:58 PM
Apr 2013

Although you hit most of the Fox talking points. Still. I have faith in you...

 

4Q2u2

(1,406 posts)
361. Presumption of Innocence
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:01 AM
Apr 2013

in this country is one of the most Cherished rights that should be guarded nonstop. When has Fox news ever had that slant in their reporting. In their eyes everyone is guilty and send in the drones. When was liberalism transformed into thinking that everything the government did is good and should not be questioned? Just because a majority may not question something does not mean that my individual questioning of something is somehow pointless or right wing. How does my belief that it is not the Governments job to treat it's citizens like criminals even remotely become Fox news talking points?

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts)
79. Every time I go see my physician
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:41 PM
Apr 2013

in fact, any doctor nowadays, one of the standard questions asked during the pre-exam interview--where they take your blood pressure, weight, etc--is "Do you feel safe at home?"

And I always snicker, because it is absurd in my case. But I understand why they ask.

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
82. It's a numbers game, isn't it?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:48 PM
Apr 2013

Statistically, most child abusers are parents or step-parents, so if there's a suspicion of abuse, they are on the possible suspect list. Abused children don't necessarily have multiple broken bones or big bruises, so doctors have a set of questions they ask the child to see whether suspicion is warranted.

Statistically, most women are murdered by their partners, so when a woman is murdered, her partner is the prime suspect until he or she can be ruled out.

Statistically, most rapists are men, and they don't have any distinguishing marks to separate them from non-rapist men, so women, who make up the majority of the victims except in very special circumstances, in most cases are careful when meeting new men/are in not-completely safe situations. I'm sure that most men in prison, where men make up the majority of rape victims, are also careful and suspicious of other men - since until proven otherwise, they don't know which men are rapists and which ones are not. The same is the case in the military, where a high number of rape victims are men, but I think that most military men think it cannot happen to them, until it does, because of the atmosphere of 'camaraderie' and 'alpha-male toughness' that is so prevalent in much of the military.

It would be interesting if we could manage to have a serious discussion with men who have been to prison and in the military, and see whether their experiences mirror that of most women's everyday life. However, I fear that any such discussion would be derailed very quickly by those who refuse to see that 'Schrödinger's rapist' isn't claiming that all men are rapists. Some take it very personally - to the extent that I almost begin to suspect they may be feeling guilty about something - in a 'the lady doth protest too much' kind of way.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
90. very very balanced post and missing the land mines. yes. exactly. thank you. helps to see it
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:01 PM
Apr 2013

beyond a womans issue.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
111. Used to be that priests were beyond such questions.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:36 PM
Apr 2013

No one should be beyond such a question.

There is no sure way to fight this. Talking about it is a good start and what we as people do best.

pediatricmedic

(397 posts)
118. Abuse screens are standard now, it is not extreme
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:47 PM
Apr 2013

It's not paranoia or an accusation of abuse.

We look for indicators of abuse, if found, we do a more detailed assessment.

This is done for the benefit of the children.

Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #118)

polly7

(20,582 posts)
135. I'm on pins and needles waiting to see what she comes up with to
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:16 PM
Apr 2013

justify cheering on 'all men benefit from rape'. Somehow, I don't think 'all parents benefit from child abuse' is going to work well.



 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
149. you would have to read the article. not gona get non biased from these two. UL is following
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:39 PM
Apr 2013

me around hooking the link to me, somewhere in this thread.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
153. LMAO!!!! Always, always someone else's fault.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:43 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2154087

And save your judgmental bullshit. We're not the ones painting half the population as everything you do, day after day after day.
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
155. always fabricating shit. fault? wtf? and bummer. i deleted the OP and the link to the report
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:46 PM
Apr 2013

so rex cant read. had forgotten about that. so.... a link to a thread, without the article. plenty of people in that thread explained it. he wants the info, you provided with the link.

your whine about fault makes no fuckin sense

Response to polly7 (Reply #156)

Response to polly7 (Reply #194)

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
159. "Not all men rape--but all men benefit from the fact that some men do."
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:48 PM
Apr 2013

Thanks for the link, I still do not understand how us non-raping men benefit from men that do rape. If anything I would call it a huge hindrance toward men and women relationships in general.

Response to Rex (Reply #159)

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
206. I am reading that thread atm.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:29 PM
Apr 2013

From what I can understand, because I CAN walk to my car at night and not worry about rape is an direct privilege I GET that women do not get for fear of being raped at night while walking to their car from work. So BECAUSE of that, I can work late at my job and impress my boss whereas my female co-workers cannot work late. Out of fear of physical assault.

I don't see how anyone can get, 'all men are potential rapists' from that - but am not finished with the thread.

Response to Rex (Reply #206)

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
215. 'I think rape is committed by rapists, who are criminals and individuals and who belong in prison.'
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:39 PM
Apr 2013

100% agreement on that. I also do not believe it is an act committed to keep women-as-a-class down. It might be so for the individual offender, but I do not believe that to be the overall goal.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
163. Quite, actually.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:50 PM
Apr 2013

Aren't you just a bit curious? I mean, a thread about child abuse to justify the notion that all men are potential rapists - even though she supposedly violently disagrees with that statement, or something ........ I can't imagine what / who will be used to justify the beneficial rape thing. Can you?

ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
179. What are you talking about?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:09 PM
Apr 2013

Aside from a few derailers, I see for the most part people discussion the topic as indicated by the OP.

Clearly, you see things though a much different...perspective than I do.

pediatricmedic

(397 posts)
334. Don't worry, we have mental illness screens as well...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:04 PM
Apr 2013

For anybody that thinks a statement like that is rational or sane.

bigtree

(85,919 posts)
123. I can *mostly understand it. I'm repulsed by it, however. My family didn't require that scrutiny
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:52 PM
Apr 2013

who to blame? The abusers and rapists, of course. Shitty the way things are. making room for my feelings isn't going to change that. I do appreciate people who assume that I'm likely a good parent. I have no reason at all to invite such scrutiny. It does burn, you know. I wonder how many times you could take that attitude from folks charged with caring for, or teaching your child. No, I don't like it at all, and, when I was a young parent, I needed all the encouragement I could find. We certainly didn't need to feel any pall of suspicion from these folks you've listed. As far as we were concerned, THEY were more subject to OUR judgment of their own worth and conduct, and, we held them firmly and relentlessly accountable wherever we felt the need. I'll be damned if I'd tolerate some leading line of questioning, outside of some legitimate need for such suspicion. I'm very defensive about my family. I feel I have every right to be. perhaps these folks do, as well - but, I guarantee you that I'm going to insist on being treated with respect. I'm not convinced that includes being treated like a 'potential abuser.'

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
146. Respectfully, that's a pediatrician's job, really.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:36 PM
Apr 2013

As a mandatory reporter who is concerned with the welfare of patients, it's part of the pediatrician's responsibility. Same with cops, and others who deal with people on a professional basis and are charged with preventing bad things.

As for myself, while I'm aware that some parents abuse their children, I'm not charged with the safety of children. So, I don't think of parents as potential abusers unless they show serious anger management problems or other issues in other situations. And, most parents don't abuse their children.

If it is part of a professional's duty to inquire into things, then that's one thing. Doctors, for example, inquire into many areas of a person's life, in an attempt to treat the whole person. Others, however, have no such responsibility. I don't think of people as potentially ill. If they're obviously ill, then I recognize that, but I don't concern myself with whether a person who doesn't seem ill is "potentially" ill.

Bottom line is that some people are required to look at people in different ways, and be always alert for issues. The rest of us aren't.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
233. But there is a correlation in that there is no easy way to tell
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:54 PM
Apr 2013

Who will be abusive and endanger others who are close to them. It's information that will actually serve young kids and adults really well, your abuser can - and is much more likely to- be anyone - family or friend.
Even many adults here don't realize this. Education is key!

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
252. No, there's no easy way to tell, you're right.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:29 PM
Apr 2013

In all forms of abuse. Adults have the advantage of experience, and are generally better judges of the abuse potential of an individual, depending on the amount of time they have known and observed that individual. Pretty much every adult I know has some sort of minimum standards they use to set the time required to form such judgments. They're not usually formal standards, but are based on a number of factors. Some people, obviously, are better able to judge than others, for various reasons.

Children neither have developed that judgment, nor do they usually have any opportunity to avoid people who might be risky, especially if those people are part of their family. Because of that, they are especially vulnerable to abuse by family members. The common warnings to avoid solitary contact with strangers are necessary for children, since they do not have the experience needed to make accurate assessments, even after long contact with non-family members.

Fortunately for both children or adults, the actual low percentages of people who are abusive work in their favor. Most parents never abuse their children, and other family members pretty much fit the same percentages. Children expect to be, and usually are safe with close family members. When they are not, we hope that others who are able to recognize abuse issues do recognize them and report them. That's why teachers, pediatricians and others who come into contact with children are mandatory reporters. Sadly, not all mandatory reporters have the training to detect abuse properly.

For adults, there aren't really any mandatory reporters, although there have been attempts to create that class. Doctors, law enforcement, and others are expected to try to recognize and report abuse, but often do not witness the abuse, and so much abuse gets missed. Again, most people are not abusers, and most relationships between adults are not abusive. But, adults, like children, still need to watch for signs of potential abuse, and most adults have some criteria for detecting the potential for abuse in the people they meet. Sadly, those criteria often aren't accurate, and some abusers are expert at masking tell-tale signs.

The bottom line is that abuse happens, and it happens too frequently. So, criteria for detecting potential abuse has to be constantly fine-tuned. For many people, with regard to relationships, there are time criteria they use to avoid situations where abuse might occur until they have observed the person in safer surroundings. Often, those time criteria are too short to be effective, however, and the potential for abuse is not detected in time to avoid the actual abuse.

What to do? Ideally, every person would be taught and learn never to abuse another person. That's a great goal, and everyone should be involved in making it a reality. Failing that, and we will always be failing that, observation over time and avoidance of situations where abuse is more likely to occur is the best defense.

When it comes to sexual relationships, the boundaries are fuzzy for detecting and avoiding potential abuse. The problem isn't strangers, so much, since we can take precautions to avoid situations involving strangers. It is those people with whom we choose to associate in a sexual relationship who are the most likely to become abusive. This is an area that is available for modification, I think. Better understanding of human behavior and better awareness of signals that a potential abuser may display seem to be useful things to study. Humans are weird, though, and sometimes tend to be attracted to people who may turn out not to be ideal when it comes to sexual relationships. It's a real problem, and one for which I have no clue of a solution.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
262. Good points. I can say from experience that many
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:23 PM
Apr 2013

give off any signals at all as to how they'll behave when you're alone. That's always what it comes down to.
Some people seem pushy or manipulative and they're pretty easy to screen out. Just as many give no hint that they are anything but kind and respectful - or totally disinterested and turn on a dime if you somehow end up alone with them. The disinterested thing can totally throw you for a loop.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
289. I understand.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:35 PM
Apr 2013

Not everyone reveals his or her entire personality in public. That makes things even more difficult. I do not have a clue how to eliminate such people until they reveal try themselves fully.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
165. You know what?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:52 PM
Apr 2013

I'm sick and damn tired of passive aggressive posts like this.

I should not have to scroll thru a bunch of posts to understand where something like this comes from. META is dead, but clearly the fights go on.

Why not just come out and say exactly what you are talking about instead of leading DU members to understand that this is nothing more than a member call out?


Feminism aside, 2 wrongs do not make a right.

The original post is just stupid on its face. It sounds like a Bush era viewpoint that all muslims should be presumed to be terrorists. Am I the only one who remembers something called profiling?

According to the OP everyone should be assumed guilty first.

I do not believe that the person who wrote this actually believes it. If the person does, I would say that feminism might be the least of its concerns. To say that it is ok that one is viewed as first and foremost as an abuser and then being told as the OP did that it is just Okaydokay is akin to living in a society where women are considered lessors.

If this was written tongue in cheek on DU to prove a point, it is a total fail. We should not be promoting intergroup fights -- ESPECIALLY in GD.

Community Standards on DU should not require a majority of the community to have to figure out WTF the message is.

META is dead. Please stop asking the entire community of DU to play such games.



 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
167. ya know. if you feel that way i would think you would have addressed the man that put this garbage
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:56 PM
Apr 2013

out yesterday to rile people once again, instead of once again coming in to lecture us while we try to put their fire out that they created. but, god knows i would not expect you to actually address the one who is trying to cause problems.

and while you go into ream my ass some more what a contemptible person i am, and how wrong some of us feminist always are, and how innocent the men are that started this crap once more, .....

i am done. with you.

never do get past the first sentence of your posts.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
218. Fair enough. I have a question:
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:39 PM
Apr 2013

Why did you actually use this phrase?

while you go into ream my ass some more what a contemptible person i am, and how wrong some of us feminist always are, and how innocent the men are that started this crap once more, .....


First, I never EVER said you were 'a contemptible person' I DID disagree with you.

you are not answering my post, particularly the part where I said it was a callout.

You are not helping yourself here.

Seriously, did you REALLY use a RAPE reference?

YES, yes you did.
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
227. ream my ass is a rape reference? well then, see how this works. thanks for the info. i will not
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:45 PM
Apr 2013

use it again.

now, gonna get all over (or is that a rape reference also?) arney for starting this shit? i will be waiting. breathlessly

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
247. This is now becoming laughable.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:18 PM
Apr 2013

and sad --

YES. ream my ass is a rape reference. Are you really that bad at messaging? You, as a woman, should know that 'ream my ass' is a rape ref.


What are you waiting for breathlessly? I'm am honestly trying to make sense of this:

now, gonna get all over (or is that a rape reference also?) arney for starting this shit? i will be waiting. breathlessly


I don't understand. I don't.

arney? gonna get all over? It makes no sense.

You can wait all you want.

You used a rape joke to defend yourself. That is really bad.



 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
249. nope. i didnt. i learn all the time. didnt know wuss was a combination of two words either.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:22 PM
Apr 2013

live and learn. right?

i would think that would be appreciated. you know, honesty. learning. thanking. but.... nah, more snark.

arley. he started the thread yesterday claiming us feminists are ALWAYS throwing it out at men. the only ones throwing it out are men like arney accusing feminists of ALWAYS throwing it out at men.

and you were cheering. not calling him to knock it off.

Sissyk

(12,665 posts)
273. seabeyond,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:09 PM
Apr 2013

I defended you in that thread yesterday. Told him it was enough. Stated that I thought it was a call out of you and that you had not said that.

However, you did "cheer" Briget (I think that was the name) that stated all men benefit from rape, did you not? You could have explained that back then.

But, why will you not at least admit now that this is also a call out? Hell, you are the only one that has mentioned him by name in this thread. Yet you say it is not about you or him. What give?

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
276. i will try this once.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:34 PM
Apr 2013

yes. you did. and i appreciate that.

arleys OP was a thread of a whole lot of personal attack and that is about it. false accusation. bullshit. almost always the only time that comment comes up is when a man throws it out to rile people up about the feminists. as it was once again by arley. then we hear the same crap. as if people do not understand what is being said.

i watched posters bring hof into host forum because of that OP. it does not belong there. this morning, after a day of this bogus crap, someone once again threw it into my face in mirt, it does not belong there. all the while a man brings the shit up again, and then people attack us with it. we have once aghain, NOT said a damn thing.

i started a post to address how the comment "all men are potential rapists" is no more or no less than "all parents are potential abusers". it is no more a bigger deal than that. it is no less a big deal than that. it is no more than a woman walking out into a parking lot and knowing if the man approaching is a threat.

that is it. once again to allow people to not see that they are being called rapists as i am not being called an child abuser.

dont let it be used to attack feminists.

then the same people came in and did nothing but personal attacks.

the article, Op, you are referring to about all men benefit from a rape culture was from an article. i had read it. it was an interesting theory. i wanted a discussion. i kinda understood, but, i wanted to hear more what was being said in the article cause i did not fully grasp it. i wanted to hear others express their opinion to better get what was being said. an exploration of thought. that should not be a problem on a discussion board. a lot of people found the article interesting.

again, no more or less than any of these other theories to understand shit. grow. become enlightened, understand, knowledgeable.

if you and others go after me for exploring that thought, then go after the many many other people on the thread that found it interesting.

i really should not have to apologize for that.

and you know sissy, you can say i am the only one using the name arley, but it is cause i do not play fuckin games. you can see when people started the same shit, and saying.... more, as if i was the one bring it up all over again, when in fact i was addressing the bullshit from his post. why are you not asking those in this thread, why the pretend they do not know exactly what they and that other OP was all about. why are we suppose to all pretend otherwise.


Sissyk

(12,665 posts)
284. Thank you for that reply. It is appreciated.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:08 PM
Apr 2013

I am going to try to answer this in detail but I'm on my ipad which I haven't mastered yet. lol! However, I do not want to wait until tomorrow in hopes that this thread AND THE OTHERS that divide us dems will be gone.

I think I know what you were trying to do with this thread. And, I really don't blame you if someone had posted a thread like the other about me. And it was about you. But, part of the problem (in my mind) is how SOME make people feel if they don't agree with their opinion. They hit back. Just like you do. Yes, that's whay you've done here, and in HOF in my opinion. Everyone sees you and a few others talking about AT, what happened in META, threads in GD, what happened in host forum, what happened on MIRT, talking about menz and cheerleaders (meaning women that do not agree with yall). My point, it's not one sided.

If you had gave the explanation IN THE FIRST THREAD that you gave up above, I don't think this would have followed you around at all. But, you know as well as I do that people can only go by the words that are written. That's what a message board is. Your first post. Read it, sea and tell me if that explains what you just explained above.

I am not going after you.

I wanted to have a conversation with you, which I am now doing and appreciate you explaining as you did above.

The way I see it, I can't control what any one else has to say. I replied to you because it was your thread and I said what I had to say to arley (or whatever his name) in that thread. Just like you can't control anyone else on this board. Again, it's a message board. Not life or death. I'm only ressponsible for me. The reason I mentioned him in my post was because you said up above (andI I apologize in advance if someone else said it) that this thread wasn't about him.

Now, I hope I haven't mixed this up too much but again....ipad. And I can't see your post and mine on it so mine is scattered. But, I know from reading you that you are a feminist, you love the men in your life, and seem to be a good person. Where we disagree, I think, is on the minor details. The stuff that goes off the rails here because of a bad word, or a call out, or because we don't take the time to write a clear post. No disrespect meant sea, but the majority of the disagreements between you and others seems to be because you do not make sense sometimes. I am not a great writer myself but I try to make my point clear.

Again, thanks for taking the time above. I appreciate it.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
330. "Not all men rape--but all men benefit from the fact that some men do"
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:31 PM
Apr 2013

was nowhere in the OP.

You quoted every bit of someone's very long blog post - not one word of that OP was your own, took credit for it http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022154026#post245........ and I'm assuming you deleted it because you were warned it was a copyright violation.

Nowhere in the article did it say that "Not all men rape--but all men benefit from the fact that some men do." Brigid first introduced it - here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2154087

Which is why I wrote this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2154579

For someone who spends so much time saying how dishonest everyone else is, you really need to to a little introspection.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
285. You are assuming.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:09 PM
Apr 2013

There is no snark here, sister.

None whatsoever. Do try to not be so presumptuous about me.

You already claimed you can't read beyond the forst lines of my posts, so how in the name of hionest discussion would you dare claim such a thing about me?

I at least believe you deserve the dignity of reading the posts you write in the threads I happen to come across. You do not afford me the same.

READ AGAIN what I wrote originally in this OP. You are expecting Members of DU to go back and figure out wth you are talking about.

You know this. I know this.

You don't seem to like that I did not call out some arley person. That is something else you assumed. What you don;t get is that I was responding to YOUR POST. You posted this. YOU and YOU alone.

You don;t need to worry about what I may or may not have said to the poster that you are taking issue with. That isn't any of your business.



Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
318. Here is a suggestion: edit, or self delete.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:25 PM
Apr 2013

Cause you have written something REALLY nasty and it is still sitting here in this thread. I HAVE NOT ALERTED as I was part of the exchange.

You learned something, as you said, and yet you have let it sit here. It is a rape reference.

It is a rape joke, seabeyond. You are justifying the use of that term. Now that you are aware of it, PLEASE delete it.

and while you go into ream my ass some more what a contemptible person i am, and how wrong some of us feminist always are, and how innocent the men are that started this crap once more, .....


PLEASE delete or EDIT what you wrote.




tkmorris

(11,138 posts)
264. Unless you consented to have your...*ahem*... "ass reamed"
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:28 PM
Apr 2013

Then yes, I'd say it is a rape reference. What else could a non-consensual anal penetration possibly be?

Response to Raine1967 (Reply #218)

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
280. I hate expectations...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:57 PM
Apr 2013

But I'll stick with DU. It's quite eye opening to me to see a member dismiss me after saying they don't read my posts.

I may not be prolific here on the DU, but I think I have a thing or 2 to say about the rights of women. I just happen to disagree with a few people here.



Response to Raine1967 (Reply #280)

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
309. I'd like to say I agree with you...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:04 PM
Apr 2013

but your profile pick makes me sing the Sanford & son theme song... You give me an earworm EVERYTIME I see it!

-- all joking aside, I think women have big issues to deal with, and I simply disagree with the approach of some women, it seems like they want all women to approach feminism in their view.

AND FOR THE RECORD: It's not just people on DU. This is something I see from some feminist sites-- it may surprise you (AND OTHERS) I don't get all my feminist information from DU.

You see, I actually participate in the real world. Sorry, I missed you in 2004.

Thanks for being there.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
169. I asked skinner in ATA if he meant for GD to become the new META
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:56 PM
Apr 2013

he said no, so I would assume he also meant that 'meta flame-wars' will not be tolerated in GD.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
205. That has been my understanding as well.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:28 PM
Apr 2013

It is part of my objection to this post.

I object to the entire post as it is nothing more than she/he did it so he/she can do it too. (or vice verse)

It's ridiculous. this is not GENERAL DISCUSSION. This is fighting. This is a fight on a very personal level within DU. This is about calling out members of DU by using the framework of DU3.

I find it stupid that MOST members of DU have to go and search to figure out what this is all about before they get it is pretty much a turf war between a few groups.

It makes GD suck. DU members should not have to figure out WTF a hot thread like this is all about. ( background links might help to make OP like this would help)

DAMN. I want olive garden right now.

<-- Levity.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
210. Maybe we can mix Fight Club with the Olive Garden?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:35 PM
Apr 2013

"Saved by the bell and a fresh round of breadsticks!"

TKO by Fettuccine Alfredo.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
219. but, you cheer arneys thread accusing feminists saying this. when he was the only one saying it.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:40 PM
Apr 2013

inconsistent.

i did not hear you lecture him to stop. nope. saw a thumbs up

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
254. CHEER?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:34 PM
Apr 2013

I ask you to provide proof of this.

Is it you argument that we should have lectured some Anrey? (I may have missed this link, so yes, let's make it TOTALLY about GD! )


Do you really think I need to read EVERY damned thread on DU to get the damned subtext?

You are wrong. You lie. I cheered nothing. Why not give all of DU the thread you are upset about?

It's not my job to cheer or to not cheer. This is not about me. Stop making this personal, seabeyond. I said my piece without naming names. You chose to assume things about me.

Stop assuming.





.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
321. CRICKETS.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:43 PM
Apr 2013

Come on, SEA.

You made an accusation, gimme some proof so I can see what your beef is with me.

Otherwise, stop calling me out. It's not my job to read everything you post on DU.

I'll give you one more chance, show me where a I cheered.



temporary311

(954 posts)
270. Thats the problem.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:49 PM
Apr 2013

While Meta was flushed, the ones that made Meta such a cesspool were left floating around, and it seems they've drifted over here to turn GD into Meta 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
192. That's pretty funny.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:14 PM
Apr 2013

Are you suggesting that I self-censor so I don't have to see things I disagree with?

Are you telling me that I am not welcome to comment in General discussion? I hope not. I don;t go into some safe haven groups because I know that my opinions would not be welcome. GD is not a safe haven group.

You don't get to attempt tell me what to do. You may disagree, but kindly, try not to tell me to trash anything.

My point stands. I absofuckinglutely will not trash any thread that is a clear callout of members of DU.

That is easy as pie as well.







Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
196. Then you take what's out there, skippy.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:18 PM
Apr 2013

Too many women speaking up for your taste? Tough fucking shit - deal with it.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
324. Is that what you got?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:59 PM
Apr 2013

if that is what you took from what I wrote, you need to sit back for a moment and take look. YOU SAID:

Too many women speaking up for your taste? Tough fucking shit - deal with it.


Don't twist my words. You chose to create a straw argument.


YOU chose to see it that way. Then you decided to create a debate from something that was never suggested.

This is cloud crazy feminist land.

TOUGH FUCKING SHIT, as you yourself said,
Tough fucking shit - deal with it.,
you attempted to create a diversion and I am sorry to say it is lost on me. (nice try, I will give you credit for that. )

Oh, My name isn't Skippy...

It's Raine.


I am sure you didn't mean to be condescending. That said, you were.

Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #173)

Response to seabeyond (Reply #228)

Response to opiate69 (Reply #331)

Response to opiate69 (Reply #340)

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
171. Interesting story
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:00 PM
Apr 2013

I'm still young enough to remember my doctors as a kid. Can't recall them ever asking me any questions suggesting I was abused. Maybe you had peculiar doctors, or maybe you misinterpreted.

Anyway, I don't think doctors or teachers should assume parents are potential abusers. Unless there are some signs or something.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
176. Same here, but this was the early 70s.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:07 PM
Apr 2013

Maybe they did not do such things back then. Then again, my doctor was my family doctor and knew my parents and their parents as well since we all lived in a very small town.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
188. I grew up in the 90s-00s
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apr 2013

And it was that way with me. I grew up in one of the most liberal areas of the country. Maybe we were just lucky.

 

Tireman

(40 posts)
185. So if a pediatrician has certain "canned" questions
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:11 PM
Apr 2013

used to determine the potential for abuse(which most seem to agree as being a good this in this thread)...I wonder sea...what canned questions would you have for men to dispel any concerns of future rape attempts?

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
209. The questions are to detect abuse that has occurred ...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:34 PM
Apr 2013

So, what your suggesting wouldn't be helpful at all.

undergroundpanther

(11,925 posts)
253. I agree with you Seabeyond
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:33 PM
Apr 2013

why would people imagine accusations when that position is expressed in other serious contexts?

kimbutgar

(20,882 posts)
255. Once my son fell off the climbing gym at school and broke his wrist. He is on the autism spectrum.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:49 PM
Apr 2013

They called me and I came and picked him up and called the doctor and made an appointment to bring him in. Everyone I encountered asked me over and over how it happened. Which I told them it happened at school. My son is verbal and they asked him and he told them he fell off the climbing structure. I do not think it was extreme because all it takes is one child or woman or man who has been abused to not get asked the question and end up dead or in the hospital. I also was taught as a teacher in training that I was mandated to report any suspected abuse of a child. There was one child in my class a sweet boy who sometimes kept his jacket on on warm days and was withdrawn that was out of his usual nature. At the time I didn't think much of it but after I left my student teaching in that class I happened to run into the teacher and asked her how this boy was and told her how I always thought of him after the fact about his behavior. About a week later she called me and told me that she made him take his coat off and he had these horrible bruises on his arm that she reported it and he was in child protective services now because he confessed to getting beat up for getting grades below A-. This was an Asian child. I kick myself that I didn't realize this sooner and pointed it out to the teacher. There were so many challenging kids in the class he kind of kept himself low key and hidden. I always wondered what happened to him as he would be 17 now.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
302. I, too, have had the experience of working with a child where I MISSED abuse.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:22 PM
Apr 2013

There were a few signs, but I just didn't put it together.

It kills me to think I could have protected a child and wasn't vigilant enough to do so. Luckily, the abuse was ferreted out by someone who was more observant than I was.

You can bet that I am never going to let that happen again, and I do see all parents as potential abusers till I rule out the possibility.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
348. Seems that working with children presents a double edged sword when it comes to detecting abuse.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 02:28 AM
Apr 2013

Sometimes, you may falsely report abuse...and once your realize your mistake the family is RUINED...the parents are now unemployed and in debt due to the criminal charges and legal bills fighting false accusations of child abuse.

And as you said in your experience, you once missed abuse and let the parents get away.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
366. I take your point, but in my area
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:09 PM
Apr 2013

social services always seems to err on the side of leaving children in the home, allowing parents access, not disrupting the family unless the abuse has escalated to a really serious and unmistakeable level. I know that is not the case everywhere, and I can see the potential for tragedy with false accusations where they are more eager to disrupt a family.

I have been very frustrated by the slowness of action sometimes here, but as you point out, perhaps it is a balance that needs to be kept. It's just so frightening to think of what some kids go through in their homes, though.

There's no good answer on this one.

idwiyo

(5,113 posts)
299. "Guilty until proven innocent" combined with "think of the children". I wonder what's next.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:13 PM
Apr 2013

And yes, it totally fucked up way of thinking. IMNSHO.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
327. young vulnerable person= basic awareness they need
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:13 PM
Apr 2013

in addition to all that dark alley crap that leaves them with a false picture of "stranger danger" being the biggest threat.
And I agree- the reality is sad.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
329. You can make safe choices without carrying the mental image that everyone
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:30 PM
Apr 2013

is a potential rapist.

That is called common sense.

An illustration:

Everyone is also a potential murderer, thief, drug addict, embezzler, etc.

--But that does not mean I avoid interacting with the world for fear of murder, theft, embezzlement.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
332. I don't think most people carry the image- in fact most carry the false, reverse image....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:42 PM
Apr 2013

rapists are lone crazed psychos in the shadows... and my teacher, my uncle my brothers best friend would never....
It doesn't behoove anyone who is at all vulnerable to go around with stupid ideas like that, does it? Are you really promoting ignorance is bliss here? Because the truth upsets you?

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
333. Well, in a sense I guess I am.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:02 PM
Apr 2013

As long as one can stay safe, ignorance can be bliss.

I don't think we really have any disagreement over facts here, so I will discontinue this min-debate with this final thought.

The images of others that we carry around in our heads do not stay there. They come out in our actions, in our words, they are passed on to our children, friends, neighbors and yes, even on message boards.

Living one's life with the never-forgotten view that every man you meet, date, see at a bus stop, open the door for (joke) is a potential rapist, staring hungrily at you with bad thoughts may contribute to your physical safety but is not going to do a hell of a lot for your emotional safety or for the promotion of peace and happiness among the inner lives of those around you.

Life safe, use common sense and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That is how I choose to live and how I encourage others -FWIW.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
336. i think you're confusing having knowledge with obsessing about it....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:18 PM
Apr 2013

and a great deal of the obsessing here has been some men (not you) so offended by the very idea itself that they never come close to understanding what's behind it. Reality based discussions are disrupted all the time here because it offends some egos. I don't know why it should be so personal, I really don't get it. But it;s too easy for you to say it's harmful to talk about it- every HS and college girl needs to know the realities, even if you don;t like contemplating them.

But assuming women walk around obsessed and fearful because they know what's what is bullshit. That's largely a personality trait you are born with or aren't. Plenty of people obsees over crazy dangers that exist only rarely- and plenty cannot worry about a damned thing even when they should.

I know youre caring and thoughtful - and now educated enough, to know that giving your daughter only the standard rape PSA as a talk is seriously lacking. And I bet you'll do a lot better than that for your kids. And that's what it's all about really.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
337. Thank you.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:24 PM
Apr 2013

My oldest, my daughter, just left for college and, of course, I am concerned.

I got her into a "share house" with 3 other young ladies and men are not allowed. She was all for the idea.

She is a careful and wise person and I hope she always makes safe choices. There will always be some degree of danger that has to be weighed against the vulnerable position we put ourselves in (and I think "need" to put ourselves in) when we begin to trust another.

You could say that you NEVER really know another person and that is precisely why domestic abuse and rape occurs even within marriages, I suppose.

Again, I hope she makes the wise choices that I think will arise naturally from her self-respect, self-love and from her self-reliant nature.

But yes, I worry.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»no more, no less. a ped...