Letters to the Editor
healthyskeptic
Published Letters: 671 Editor's Choice: 14
-
the differences
[Read the article: Chatty Cathy, Taciturn Ted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the difference is HOW they talk and the question is why this image persists
Generally speaking, men and women tend to talk about different things by choice and have different interests. It's part cultural reinforcement of norms, and part natural brain differences which are structured towards different priorities.
One difference is that women are generally more empathetic, meaning they want more emotional reciprocation in conversation, and may discuss emotional dynamics which can be burdensome for some men. Another example is the tendency for women to watch soap operas, read dramas, or gossip, basically working out emotional dramas, the more convoluted the better.
By comparison men tend to be more interested in things, so the mechanics and trivia of their car engine or the mechanics of their workplace politics may seem more fascinating, which can be burdensome for some women. For example guys tend to have tinkering hobbies, focused on building or messing with mechanical things, the more convoluted the better.
Of course there is a great deal of overlap, especially when focused on work or study, where obviously people talk about work and study. And socialization towards wholly rational and pursuits, such as mathematics for example, will gender neutralize conversations.
But in regards to personal interests and the ways in which people experience the world, those are biologically skewed by gender. Those biases also influence probability of studies, hobbies, and other pursuits, which then influence career and lifestyle choices.
-
cheers
[Read the article: The long arms of Enron reach beyond the grave]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great article detailing the issues and good tie-in to ENRON. The quasi-religious market-worship and laissez-faire dogma is such nonsense and people need to be inoculated against it's infectious simplistic appeal.
-
zactly
[Read the article: Chatty Cathy, Taciturn Ted?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you trolling your own blog again Tracy?
Does Ms. Walsh threaten you folks if you don't get a certain number of hits?
No kidding.
-
wrong.
[Read the article: Groping toward gender equality]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, that's wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about.
-
"putting women's health at risk"
[Read the article: Boost in Plan B sales]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah right. As though that's the religiously anti-abortion movement's real concern. God I'm sick of people lying through their teeth every opportunity they get.
-
Good information
[Read the article: Genetic mutations may not mean deadlier cancer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wish Salon had more of these types of posts, simply presentign good information to help really empower people with knowledge and improve life. There is nothing wrong with simply posting a "thanks" to the thread, rather than trolls arguing.
Unfortunately, too often Salon goes with the tabloid article and especially those designed to stir up controversy and angst. Maybe it's because the tabloid junk generates more hits and posts, and ad trackers favor quantity over quality.
Perhaps if Salon had some means to register positive feedback and page/ad views, without the need to generate controversy or encourage trolls, we'd see much better content.
-
Anorexia or morbid obesity?
[Read the article: Anorexia: It's not just for teens]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is anorexia a favorite subject for some women's columnists as opposed to say obesity for example? Obesity is the larger health problem, by a couple orders of magnitude. Anorexia is hardly worth mentioning being almost non-existent by comparison statistically.
About 2/3 the population is overweight with long term health consequences, 1/3 obese with severe health consequences, none of them good. Obesity causes or exacerbates all of the top 10 killer diseases according to national statistics. Heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc. According to wikipedia, anorexia effects between 8 and 13 cases per 100,000 persons per year and an average prevalence of 0.3% using strict criteria for diagnosis.
There is something rather sick about a "women's issues" column promoting the notion that anorexia is a major health problem and knowing that plays to the self rationalization psychology of women readers who are very likely to be over eating and shortening their lives and reducing quality of life as a result. How that is "empowering" is a mystery to me. Sounds like good old pandering and patronizing.
-
inconclusive
[Read the article: Anorexia: It's not just for teens]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We know now that there is likely to be a biological factor that predisposes people to PTSD, because we know that some combat soldiers will develop PTSD when other soldiers facing the same traumatic events do not.
FYI: That alone doesn't necessarily prove a biological/genetic component. Individual psychology from life experience also would vary the effects.
-
highly genetic
[Read the article: Anorexia: It's not just for teens]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Anorexia] "Over 50% genetic Lots of research in these areas."
There is a large genetic component which predisposes some people to anorexia, though it can be overcome. The incidence of anorexia has stayed rather steady for decades, for as long as good statistics are available, which is also a good indicator of genetic component.
By comparison obesity rates have been skyrocketing, which is entirely behavioral as the genetics haven't suddenly changed over the last couple decades.
-
behavior and fitness
[Read the article: Anorexia: It's not just for teens]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are some people genetically prone to obesity or thinness. But the composition of the population's sum genetic predisposition hasn't changed over the last few decades while obesity rates have been skyrocketing and people have become far less fit than decades ago. It's entirely due to lifestyle changes.
Present lifestyles have become so bad, from excessive driving, lack of exercise, over eating and the wrong foods, sedentary work and leisure, etc. that many overweight and obese people are actually genetically prone to being thin, and would be with a healthful lifestyle.
Some pacific islanders like Samoans for example are adapted to a highly physically active life with scarce nutrition. when they become couch potatoes they're especially prone to obesity as a result. Inuits living in harsh conditions are another example of people genetically prone to fat storage, but they've historically had to burn 4000+ calories just to stay warm in sub-zero winter temperatures while hunting for survival.
American's ancestors, the Europeans, Asians, and Latin Americans, and especially those from the Mediterranean, have long been agrarian cultures with relatively reliable nutrition, shelter and/or temperate weather, and other such comforts.
As such they've adapted to store less fat, and would "naturally" be much thinner.