#socioeconomic reforms

[howdoesone]

How does one assess the impact of transitional justice mechanisms in post-genocide societies?

Transitional justice mechanisms play a crucial role in post-genocide societies by addressing past atrocities, promoting accountability, and fostering reconciliation. Assessing the impact of these mechanisms is essential to understand their effectiveness in healing divided communities and preventing future conflicts. This article explores how one can assess the impact of transitional justice…

[alwaysbewoke]

A new study by the education watchdog Available to All reveals that school attendance zones and selective admission policies in the U.S. often exclude students of color and low-income families from elite public schools, thereby reinstating levels of segregation reminiscent of 1968. The study criticizes the use of residential addresses for school assignments, which supports "educational redlining" that favors affluent families, leading to systemic inequalities in access to advanced educational programs. Available to All calls for legislative reforms to protect enrollment rights and recommends that school districts minimize the importance of geographical boundaries to combat segregation and improve school access for all. The resurgence of school segregation to levels seen in 1968 is a stark reminder of how deeply systemic inequality is entrenched in our education system. Policies that favor affluent families and perpetuate educational redlining deny many Black and low-income students the opportunity to access quality education.

but listen to the racists and coons, black people are just making shit up and "playing the victim/race card."

[tenth-sentence]

Until basic environmental conditions were equalized among all socioeconomic strata, reform eugenicists held, no one had any right to say that one stratum differed from another solely by the force of heredity.

"In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity" - Daniel J. Kevles

[alltingfinns]

This may be me reading too much into linguistic and cultural differences, along with a simplified view of history, but hear me out.

In Sweden during the 19th century, after the Napoleonic wars took away our continental holdings, the country had a period of social reforms. A bit of “me” time for the country sort of say. Although it was probably more motivated by how our already low population got decimated by a huge migration wave to the Americas, because of the poor conditions people were living in. Or maybe it was a side effect of the industrial revolution.

The point is that this is the time period where we started the progress that would eventually make us the meme of social welfare we kind of are today. Coupled with the 20th century being generally dominated by majority social democratic rule.

You know what insult fell completely out of favor during this time? One that is still highly favored in English speaking countries? Oäkting. Our word for bastard, someone born out of wedlock. In general, one of the more common cultural clashes I get consuming American and British media is whenever someone makes a big deal about whether their parents were married at the time of conception or not.

Maybe I have made this connection solely because a teacher specifically pointed out how much easier those early reforms made it for single mothers, thus breaking that social stigma a bit. Not entirely, you still have those kind of studies with similar results in this country. But overall we don’t react as negatively to the idea of someone having a single parent in the past. (Though I have still faced pushback for musing on the idea of getting myself a kid or two without getting myself a partner first.)

The implication of “bastard” as an insult is that of course you must have been raised out of wedlock to be such a terrible person. But if your mother had access to professional daycare facilities that took her income into consideration for the pricing, the possibility of applying to the government for additional help with income, then what?

"You shouldn't get divorced because kids from single parent homes have worse outcomes" or hear me out we can improve the resources available for single parents and get rid of the societal stigma against them. Because even if you fucking hate divorce for some weird reason kids with only one parent will always exist and they deserve better.

[reformthesystem]

WAYS TO INCREASE SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

Hi, this is my blog post on the need for the government to significantly improve and strengthen the people's socioeconomic status, in order to gain more support. If you like my articles and want to support my work, please consider subscribing to my blog. Thanks.

[yetanotherlesbianonthiswebsite]

I am not enraged, just disappointed about the decisions that carry over. It does not matter who my Inquisitor romanced. It frankly does not matter if the Inquisition was disbanded or not; its political power is marginal at this point. And it does not matter what vow the Inquisitor took towards Solas; again, the power of the Inquisition is basically void at this point.

But we are going to go to Nevarra at this point. Orlais and Navarra share a border. Do you think it is unimportant if war hawk Gaspard rules Orlais or is dead? We are going to Weishaupt; do you think the binding legal decision to exile the Wardens from Southern Thedas backed by the major powers of the region matters not? Do you think the sweeping reforms ushered in by one Divine Victoria versus the regressive restorations of the status quo by Divine Cassandra do not have rippling effects that spread out across the schism lines? Do you think the socioeconomic position of Tevinter wouldn't be accelerated or decelerated towards its inevitable breaking point by the decisions in Southern Thedas? Do you think a ruling Briala would mean nothing to the Shadow Dragons when deciding where to send their freed elves? Orlais is the hegemon of Southern Thedas. Its civil war and its outcome do have consequences even a Magisterium and Black Divine have to consider and react to.

Origins was very viscerally about the cost of war, and the way a power vacuum in a monarchy implodes violently. DA2 was about how oppression and autocracy will encroach on your life no matter what. Inquisition was about how catholicism will absorb any opposition to it and how it will render the individual moot and broken. Veilguard is about... some guy and how much of a sob story his life is and how much you should want to fix him.

[loveamongdragons]

Don't you find it interesting that Yon Rha, a former commander of the Southern Raiders, presumably a relatively high position in the navy, was living a relatively poor life after he had retired? Now, it could be that his position wasn't as high as I imagine, but it also makes me think that the common people of the Fire nation don't see much of their country's supposed wealth and glory. That military service is not only a consequence of indoctrination and brain-washing, but also a way to escape poverty and experience socioeconomic security, at least for a while.

Which has interesting implications on internal Fire nation politics, the general perception of the regime, and the level of acceptance towards future reforms.

[ptseti]

MAURICE BISHOP’S MESSAGE TO AFRICANS IN THE UNITED STATES Today, the 13th of March, marks 45 years since the New JEWEL Movement ousted the corrupt dictatorship of Prime Minister Eric Gairy through a bloodless coup in Grenada. It is an excellent time to bring back the revolutionary prime minister, Maurice Bishop’s, address in New York about the danger Grenada’s revolution posed to the United States. The New JEWEL Movement—New Joint Endeavor for Welfare, Education and Liberation—swiftly established the People’s Revolutionary Government, ushering in a new era of socialist ideals. Under Bishop’s leadership, Grenada underwent a profound socioeconomic transformation marked by extensive reforms and initiatives to uplift the primarily poor population. By 1982, the following occurred: a literacy campaign, the construction of new schools, and the establishment of agricultural cooperatives that particularly benefitted unemployed youth in rural areas. Cuban aid bolstered these efforts, providing expertise in education, healthcare, and infrastructure development, notably constructing a modern international airport to replace the hazardous existing airstrip. Unemployment plummeted from 49 per cent to 14 per cent within four years. Symbolising the shift in priorities, vibrant billboards promoting education adorned the island, signalling a departure from those that had advertised cigarettes and alcohol. Grenada’s revolution sparked tangible social progress and economic development, leaving a lasting legacy of change and empowerment among its populace.

They HAD t o kill him ...SIGH #JewelMovement #Corrupt #Dictatorship #Grenada

[atithsinaiamonkar]

The Paradox of Pursuits

The relentless pursuit of fulfilment prompts us to question its true meaning. Why, after securing necessities, do we continue to strive for more? Why do we trade modest dwellings for opulent mansions, reliable transportation for extravagant vehicles, and simple attire for designer labels? Society shamelessly preaches that these material possessions may offer temporary gratification, but ultimately fail to provide lasting happiness. Amidst this pursuit of material wealth, we are frequently reminded of the importance of contentment and the need to give back to society. Yet, these warnings often raise more questions than answers. What constitutes true satisfaction? Where does the line between need and greed lie? And who has the authority to define these boundaries?

The lines between necessity, comfort, and luxury are often blurred, shifting and reforming with the ebb and flow of individual circumstances and societal norms. Another person may view what one person deems essential for survival as a mere indulgence. For instance, an air conditioner, once a luxury item, has become a necessity for many in regions with extreme heat, others may view it as a mere comfort or even an unwarranted expenditure. Similarly, a smartphone, while still considered a luxury by some, has become an indispensable tool for many, facilitating communication, work and entertainment. A complex and very perplexing interplay of personal values, cultural influences and socioeconomic realities shapes this subjective and highly personalised interpretation.

However, in contemporary times, it seems that others are attempting to dictate our choices and impose their values upon us. They often define our needs, comforts, and luxuries, particularly for those who have risen from humble beginnings to great heights. It is unclear whether this behaviour is driven by genuine spiritual concern or by underlying resentment and frustration. These individuals, who often offer unsolicited advice, are notably absent when support and encouragement are truly needed from them. This raises questions about their sincerity. It is crucial to recognise that each individual's journey is unique, and we cannot measure ourselves against one another. Just as each one of us faces our unique challenges and opportunities, so too do we have our unique paths to fulfilment.

Our understanding of "enough" and "satisfaction" is deeply personal and influenced by our upbringing, experiences, and aspirations. For some, a modest existence, devoid of material excess, may be the epitome of a fulfilling life. They find contentment in simple pleasures, valuing abstract contentment over material possessions. A cosy home, good food and meaningful connections may be all they need to feel truly satisfied. Others, driven by ambition and societal pressures, may strive for wealth and status, equating success with the accumulation of possessions. Their definition of "enough" is constantly evolving, as they seek to attain ever-higher standards of living. A larger house, a more luxurious car or jewellery may become their necessities, as they climb the social ladder.

One cannot help but ponder the contrast between the modest abode of Bollywood superstar Salman Khan and the palatial residence of Shah Rukh Khan. This reflection raises intriguing questions about the nature of luxury and necessity. While Salman Khan finds contentment in his modest apartment, Shah Rukh Khan revels in the grandeur of Mannat. Similarly, the Ambanis find fulfilment in the opulence of Antilia and Mr. and Mrs. N. R. Narayana Murthy derive immense satisfaction residing in a modest bungalow. These diverse choices highlight the subjective nature of human desires and the impossibility of imposing universal standards. As individuals, we have the autonomy to define our boundaries of fulfilment, whether it be a life of simplicity or one of mere extravagance.

Cultural norms play a significant role in shaping our perceptions of needs and desires. In some cultures, thriftiness and self-sufficiency are highly valued, while in others, conspicuous consumption is seen as a sign of success. These cultural differences can lead to vastly different interpretations of what constitutes a "good life." For instance, the culture in North India is renowned for its lavish celebrations, characterised by extravagant parties, opulent attire, and sumptuous feasts. In contrast, South Indian cultures often prioritise simplicity and frugality, emphasising saving, education, and intellectual pursuits over material possessions. These cultural nuances highlight the diversity of human values and their irrefutable impact on the subjective nature of our respective needs and desires.

Societal expectations often shape our unrealistic perceptions of a fulfilling life. One such prevalent notion in India is that studying or working abroad is the pinnacle of accomplishment. Affluent individuals may comfortably send their children overseas, while those from modest backgrounds may go to extreme lengths, including incurring significant debt, to follow this trend. Such actions often compromise their own well-being and financial security. It is crucial to remember that these societal expectations are constantly shifting and may not align with individual needs and aspirations. As individuals, we must prioritise practicality and personal satisfaction over blindly following trends. To achieve true fulfilment we must consider redefining our paths and making informed choices.

While societal expectations often encourage affluent individuals to engage in charitable endeavours, it is essential to recognise that charity should be a personal choice, driven by genuine compassion and a desire to make a positive impact. While charitable acts are undoubtedly noble, they should not be imposed as a moral obligation. Whether one chooses to donate to charity or invest in personal pursuits is a matter of individual conscience. It is crucial to respect these choices and avoid subjecting individuals to undue pressure or judgment. Unlike corporate social responsibility mandates, there are no legal obligations for individuals to engage in philanthropic activities. Ultimately, the decision to give back to society should be a voluntary act of kindness, rather than a forced obligation.

India recently lost a true gem, far more precious than any physical treasure like the Kohinoor. The late Mr Ratan Tata, a paragon of selfless service, will be remembered for generations to come. He dedicated his life to the betterment of society, constantly seeking ways to alleviate suffering. Even in his final days, he pondered how to use his resources to aid those afflicted with Parkinson's disease. While Mr Tata's philanthropic endeavours were exemplary, it is important to recognise that charity is a personal choice. Not everyone is obligated to follow his example of exceptional charity. While some may choose to dedicate their wealth to charitable causes, others may prefer to invest in personal pursuits. Unjust and unreasonable societal expectations of those with wealth are counterproductive.

As humans, we possess the unique ability to dream and achieve. Our brains, a remarkable gift, allow us to set ambitious goals and strive for greatness. No one can dictate the limits of our aspirations. As long as our pursuits are ethical and legal, we have the freedom to define our success. Those who attempt to impose their values and expectations on others should reconsider their approach. It is essential to respect the hard work and dedication of individuals who have achieved success. Instead of criticizing their accomplishments, we should direct our attention towards those who exploit the system and engage in unethical practices. It is disheartening to see that while honest individuals are subjected to scrutiny, those who engage in fraudulent activities often evade justice.

The adage "where needs end, greed starts" holds a profound truth. While the pursuit of success is often driven by a healthy ambition, it can sometimes spiral into destructive greed. The constant striving for more, fuelled by insatiable desires, is a powerful force that drives progress. However, this relentless pursuit can lead to unhealthy competition and a disregard for the well-being of others. When individuals attempt to dictate the boundaries of others' aspirations, they not only undermine their autonomy but also betray the spirit of healthy competition. By preaching about contentment and moderation, they may inadvertently hinder the progress of others and stifle prosperity. Ultimately, true fulfilment lies in a balanced approach that combines ambition with compassion.

[zvaigzdelasas]

At least three people have been killed in the worst unrest in New Caledonia in more than 30 years, as rioting continued and schools remained closed after France adopted controversial reforms to the Pacific territory’s voting rules.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday convened a defence and national security council meeting to discuss the riots, cancelling a scheduled trip to a French region.[...]

Despite heavily armed security forces fanning out across the capital, Noumea, and the ordering of a night-time curfew, rioting continued overnight virtually unabated. The curfew has now been extended until Thursday night, said Butler.[...]

Anger has been simmering for weeks over plans in Paris to change the constitution to allow more people to vote in New Caledonia’s provincial elections.

Critics say the move would marginalise the Indigenous Kanak people, who make up about 40 percent of the population, by allowing more recent European arrivals to vote.[...]

Denise Fisher, a former Australian consul general in New Caledonia, said she was not surprised at the violence of the past few days and told Al Jazeera it showed “a real and fundamental breakdown in the way the territory is being managed”.The voting rules are part of the so-called Noumea Accord of 1998.

Under the deal, France agreed to cede the territory more political power and to limit voting in New Caledonia’s provincial and assembly elections to those who were residents of the island at the time.

About 40,000 French citizens have moved to New Caledonia since 1998, and the changes expand the electoral roll to include those who have lived in the territory for 10 years.[...]

On Wednesday, the main pro-independence Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) urged calm and condemned the violence, calling in a statement for the rioters to return home.

Socioeconomic marginalisation, land dispossession and disenfranchisement of the Kanaks have long been a source of violent civil unrest in New Caledonia.

15 May 24

[bogcreacher]

Hey! I’ve seen your posts, and I want to know more about Rorqual. What did she do to make Trench hate her? What does Nacre think of her, etc?

I’m curious.

Rorqual indirectly murder-killed Trench’s wife, Anura. This caused Trench to shift from ‘man the monarchy sucks but not much I can do about that :(‘ to ‘I Am Going To Kill That Bastard With My Bear Hands’, which of course then lead to Trench’s challenging her

Nacre and Rorqual have a toxic, should-be-divorced thing going on. Their marriage was 80% political and sorta soured not long after their wedding - Nacre disliked Rorqual because she dismissed Nacre’s attempts to establish herself in her court and present her ideas about a socioeconomic reform, and basically treated her like arm candy. 

Nowadays their relationship is…. Better? They know each other better than anyone else, and with that comes some semblance of love, sort of?? Still kinda unhealthy and embittered, but Nacre is literally the only dragon Rorqual trusts, so, that counts for something at least. hand in unloveable hand etc 

[chicago-geniza]

Nobody come to the bookstore today I need to research Cincinnati in the 1870s-1880s, the American dry goods trade, Reconstruction socioeconomic reform, women's fashion, and the history of Jewish immigration to the Midwest for a Downton Abbey fanfiction

[hadesoftheladies]

Hades' Personal Reflections on Separatism and Power XD

so here's my current definition of separatism:

any deliberate action that women take to divest from men that simultaneously transfers energy, resources and other forms of investment to female community. it must be an exercise of women's autonomy and power that deliberately excludes, de-centers and disadvantages men while promoting, centering and including women.

this definition would hence designate the following as not separatism:

-religious or non-religious sex segregation (this is not an exercise of women's autonomy)

-religious celibacy (this is not done for the sake of female community and also invests in male hegemony by focusing on male religion)

-girl's night out where the conversation is predominantly about relationships with men (even parasocial ones) XD

-domestic scenarios women are forced into where they find themselves able to talk to each other (i.e. women in the kitchen during a family reunion)

-sex segregation in general (because separatism is organized by the oppressed and segregation is organized by the oppressor)

this definition would include:

-exclusively female social groups (clubs, meetings, etc) where resources such as information and even financial aid are shared between women (like grandma's wednesday knitting club)

-women deliberately refusing to marry, date or befriend men (or all three at once)

-consuming only female products or intellectual property

Criticisms:

Some say separatism is better off being simply described as women physically separating from men. After all, who is the oppressor here? It is men that pose a threat to women and it is relationships to men that disadvantage and drain women while advantaging and reviving men. It seems silly to say that a woman who dates and lives with a man but reads only female authors is somehow radical or a separatist (and we must remember that separatism is an expression of radical feminism hence must be aimed toward radical reformation of patriarchal social structures). It's practically an insult to separatism by trivializing the very thing it exists to eradicate (unlike other forms of activism): male supremacy in the interpersonal sphere.

If we were to try distinguish between these forms and call celibacy "radical separatism" and reading exclusively female authors "quasi-separatism" none of these terms would make sense because separatism is (or must be) itself radical action and de-centering men while reading is still a form of male exclusion, divesting from male hegemony and financial/social investment in female community.

So we're at an impasse: because separatism must always be radical and yet, things that don't seem very radical still re-structure power on some scale (thus fulfilling the basic requirements of the end-goal of separatism which is to reclaim power as women in the interpersonal sphere by excluding male access to us). A woman who divorces her husband but keeps her son is divesting from male power in a socioeconomically impactful way on one end, but not on the other.

And there's the problem: she may disadvantage and separate from her ex husband (separatism) but is also investing in and raising her son (not separatism). So what we're really asking here is: "if not dating or marrying men was separatism and radical, does doing other non-radical things cancel out said radical action?"

I'd say no. Which is why I find the vegan metaphor unfitting for this discussion. I find it more useful to define separatism and radical action through the lens of power: who is getting it, who is losing it and to what extent they are empowered/disempowered.

For example, exercising is healthy but drinking heavily is unhealthy. Me exercising will always be a healthy action regardless of what I do after. Me drinking excessively will always be unhealthy. Does it make sense to then call someone who both exercises and drinks "only healthy" or "only unhealthy"? Or is it better to discuss which of their actions are healthy or unhealthy rather than attach an identity to it?

That seems to be the heart of this disagreement. Half of us think drinking heavily excludes you from being a healthy person period. I say that exercising is still meaningful action that counts as being "healthy" or contributing to health. Not because it's necessarily "more right" but because it seems more productive to me. Separatist action will always be separatist action. Non-separatist behaviour will be non-separatist. Does that make women practicing separatism in one form and not practicing separatism in another separatists or not separatists?

I think it's not that important. Separatism (exercise) is still good to practice and as many women as possible should engage with it however or whenever they can. Exercise will always be healthy (no matter who does it) the same way divesting from men and investing in women in any form will be a form of beneficial separatism that absolutely challenges the male status quo. Non-separatist action (drinking) will still never be empowering or radical the same way partnering with men will never challenge the male status quo. I find it more productive to ask how one can take more radical action rather than whether one is or is not radical.

Because to talk about being a separatist or radical feminist as something one is or is not rather than something one does (radical/separatist action) or does not is to inevitably limit it to ideology, which limits it to the realm of history and appeals to authority (feminist theorists and academics).

Note: I use my definition of separatism because I think anything that excludes males in order to empower women is best described as separatism rather than anything else. I don't think it makes sense to call these transferrals of power under these feminist goals "not separatism."

[radicalitch]

being anti-birth control and pro-natalism-at-any-cost is so wild and bizarre imo. and it’s almost always men that are OBSESSED with reproduction and ‘continuing blood lines’ like we’re all gonna go extinct tomorrow if the woman they’re talking to doesn’t have a kid ASAP. and that’s not even a compelling alike, if humans have come to the point where the vast majority of people (women) aren’t interested in reproducing than it’s probably time for us to go and reach our natural end. and I’ve seen SO many conversations that, repeatedly, almost verbatim, between men and women, go:

“god wants you to multiply.”

“I don’t believe in god.”

“ok well NATURE and BIOLOGY want you to multiply.”

“well if that was true I’d have an innate desire to reproduce which I don’t, so you telling me to reproduce in spite of my natural, biological inclination seems pretty anti nature.”

pro-birth men are INSANE. if you want more people (women) to have children, work on creating a world better suited to child rearing (speaking from a usamerican perspective here)! but no, let’s just force women to do it, because that’s much more ethical than, like, (again, in the US) improving healthcare, education, maternity/paternity leave, cost of living, birthing safety (esp. for women of color), so on and so forth. and i know these tactics wouldn’t make all of the babies these lunatics want, bc women aren’t reproducing at super high rates in countries with these things in place. but I do think that in the US it would lead to at least some more people having kids, because I can personally think of half a dozen people who WANT kids but are choosing not to have them for socioeconomic reasons.

but even encouraging more women to have kids wouldn’t be enough for these maniacs, I don’t think. for some reason, they think the human population needs to GROW, not just retain itself, so they have an endless supply of laborers and soldiers to exploit, and have the idea in their head that their numerous descendants will inherit the earth or whatever. sorry dude, your sperm is mediocre at best and there’s nothing special about you that deserves to live on through a child, especially at the expense of a woman.

like, you’d think all of my suggestions for birth control and social reform would really make sense if the goal was just to have more babies/prevent abortion, but it’s 100000% about male control over reproduction.

baby, if your ‘god’ wanted you to control that, I think ‘he’ would’ve built us a little differently.

[mariacallous]

Editor's note: This is the third blog in our series that examines how social determinants influence gender biases in public health research, menstrual hygiene product development, and women’s health outcomes. 

As a hygiene tool with a history and influence far greater than its compact size, tampons have proven to be of critical importance in matters of public health, ranging from deadly infections to socioeconomic challenges. This impact grows with time; tampons have recently been linked to grave health concerns, such as dementia, infertility, diabetes, and cancer. As history and current studies suggest, the potential for further health concerns to emerge means that preventative measures, such as greater funding for relevant research and implementation of laws and regulations that promote the safety of consumers, need to be undertaken.  

The earliest model of tampons dates as far back as 1500 B.C.E. They were a crude variation of current commercial tampons made from naturally occurring plant fibers, as documented in early societies in Africa, Asia, the Roman Empire, and the Pacific Islands. Throughout the following centuries, the design of tampons gradually evolved while attitudes toward tampons slowly shifted to include their health and socio-political implications. In 1933, the tampon, as we know it today, was created and patented, and tampon technology has continued to grow ever since. In fact, the desire to create tampons that would absorb more menstrual flow and could be used for longer time periods created one of the first tampon related health concerns. 

The desire to create more efficient tampons led to designs of increased absorption. In 1979, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) identified high-absorbency tampons as a co-factor in numerous cases of Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). High-absorbency tampons are not sufficient to cause TSS alone; rather, the presence of the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus in vaginal flora and the absence of the necessary immune system proteins to neutralize the flora are also required. Tampons do create the environment that leads to a higher risk of Staphylococcus aureus, with risk correlated to tampon absorbency.  

Furthermore, the tissue in the vaginal wall is highly permeable and unprotected by metabolic filtering, which increases the susceptibility of the vaginal and vulvar walls to the chemical content of the tampon core. This can be harmful as the chemical content of current commercially available tampons contains endocrine disrupting chemicals (e.g., phthalates and parabens) that are associated with the occurrence of cancer, fertility challenges, birth defects, and increases in the risk of diabetes. The most recent research from scientists at UC Berkeley adds to this list of potentially dangerous chemicals found in tampons. This includes toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, nickel, and lead. These metals, which are found in both organic/natural and non-organic tampons, can potentially increase the risk of dementia, cancer, organ damage, and compromised fetal development. This study does not estimate the amount of metal particulates absorbed through vaginal tissue or the subsequent health consequences. However, given that approximately 47% of menstruators use regular tampons—with 33% of those individuals using super-absorbent tampons and 60% using tampons overnight—the presence of such metals and other chemicals warrants heightened concern and vigilance. 

While there are new emerging health and safety issues related to tampons, we would be remiss to leave out a more widespread issue affecting persons who menstruate. Issues with the availability of tampons and menstrual hygiene products manifest from supply chain shortages, socioeconomic barriers to access, and debates over where these products should or should not be made available. Approximately one in four menstruators have or will experience “period poverty,” or difficulty accessing menstrual hygiene products due to cost and taxes on tampons and other menstrual products. This was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as supply chain issues further hindered availability through decreased supply and increased cost. However, there has been little mention of the tampon stock-out in comparison to the national discourse on other COVID-19 related stock-outs, such as infant formula and other groceries. This tampon stock-out and related cost increase were further exacerbated by the failure of cotton crops in 2022, as tampons are typically made out of cotton or rayon or a blend of both. 

It is, therefore, no surprise that tampons have entered the political discourse. In the last decade, over 60 state bills or laws that have been passed increased access to sanitary napkins by providing federal incentives for educational and correctional facilities to supply tampons to their learners and residents. Approximately half of these laws have been passed in the past three years. These efforts were prompted in party by unhoused and incarcerated people, as they experience additional challenges in accessing tampons. Others argue that tampons should also be offered in men’s bathrooms to facilitate gender equity.  

In the United States, menstruators who are low income, live in rural areas, or belong to racialized groups are more likely to experience period poverty. These socio-cultural groups are also more likely to experience health issues thought to be caused by the toxic metals recently found in tampons. For example, people of color who menstruate experience increased morbidity and mortality from Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), as well as most cancers, and are less likely to receive timely screening for these conditions.    

As tampon science and safety regulations change, so do their social and political implications, alongside growing health concerns raised by emerging studies highlighted previously.  

These new findings highlight the need for an expanded view on menstrual equity to include advocacy for funding, laws, and regulations that promote product safety without increasing access inequities. To achieve this, advocacy groups, clinicians, and consumers should demand greater transparency and accountability in tampon safety. This can encourage the establishment of new standards that ensure safety information is accessible, up-to-date, and easily understandable, similar to food labeling practices.

Furthermore, an expanded view of menstrual equity also reveals that promoting potentially less safe products does not promote health equity for those who menstruate. Rather, an important step to promote health equity is reducing access inequities. Therefore, there must be a careful balance to prevent higher costs from accompanying improvements in safety. The menstrual hygiene industry should adopt a public health approach combined with business strategies to ensure safer products and promote long-term well-being for all who menstruate.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Here's the thing with Jane Austen-Elizabeth Gaskell comparisons:

I don't think the intuition that relates them in readers is wrong. Gaskell has read Austen and it shows. I'd even go as far as to say that Gaskell is writing within the same ethic-political framework as Austen -one that is concerned with human flourishing as stemming from an ideal of fulfilled humanity based on an assortment of intellectual and moral excellences, that is, a form of virtue ethics- and I am in fact attempting to write a dissertation on this! *clown shoes noises*.

The problem is when influence and fundamental agreement is treated or understood as imitation, or worse, pastiche. "North and South is Pride and Prejudice + [insert Victorian element here]" is a fun joke, because comedy so often relies on exaggeration, but as an actual description it isn't quite right. North and South pays its homage to P&P with some elements, but it is not an AU retelling. The themes, character arcs and motivations are very different. There is a referentiality, but it is the referentiality of conversation.

Gaskell says "I see Darcy, and I see the ideal Darcy represents in the context of his community of practice (rural, pre-industrial England), as The Gentleman. He has power and he has authority. But how do we make sense of a similar figure of power and authority, but dissimilar in everything else in the context of his own community of practice (urban, industrial England)? What constitutes the ideal of The Man?" It isn't Thornton's points of coincidence with Darcy but their points of drastic contrast that motivate the socio-psycho-moral study of the character. And so on and so forth for other elements of the narrative.

Something similar happens with Wives and Daughters and Mansfield Park. Gaskell says "I understand the point about how a bad early education can fix a character in such a way as to make moral growth or reform impossible through example or exhortation. But what do we do when that person remains intimately connected to us?" Cynthia resembles Mary Crawford, but the angle of approach is different because the question is different (and the environment of transplant is different as well).

There are of course other works of Gaskell where the conversation is tenuous or completely absent. There's no romance plot in Cranford, but we do kind of see in the Cranford amazons the gossips of Highbury. There's no Emma here, no Mr Knightley, no magnanimous rich neighbor to help. The question is how do they manage to live the same virtues of generosity, patience, forgiveness, etc, between themselves.

Austen's novels are mostly occupied with the directly moral: it is about the concrete individuals and their close connections in society, and how virtues and vices in this or that person affect themselves and those around them. The communities of practice, and therefore the ideals of fulfilled humanity remain more or less the same (with some variations, of course). In Gaskell the scope is political, if anything because of Gaskell's unfamiliarity with Austen's socioeconomic environment, and familiarity with completely different ones. So she's taking Austen's general framework, and investigating in which ways the differences in the communities make for different ideals of human flourishing that still relate to the same core virtues.