Misoginia e insulto nas lojas online


OK,TODAS AS MULHERES E HOMENS, MUITA ATENÇÃO AGORA.

 

VAMOS DEIXAR UMA COISA BEEEEEM CLARA, PRETO NO BRANCO.

 

NÃO INTERESSA QUAL SUA GRIFE, SUA LOJA, SEU NOME, O PREÇO DA SUA ROUPA, OU O QUÃO LINDO DE MORRER SEJA O SEU VESTIDO, NADA, E EU REPITO, NADA NADA NADA NADA NADA NADA É MAIS DESUMANIZANTE, MACHISTA, MISOGINISTA, HUMILHANTE, DESVALORIZANTE, E TIPIFICANTE DA MULHER COMO UM OBJETO (Entenda-se “DA MULHER” como QUALQUER MULHER, como todas as mulheres) DO QUE COLOCAR NA INTERNET À VENDA UMA FOTO DE UMA MODELO NUM VESTIDO LINDO, OU FEIO, NÃO INTERESSA, ESCONDENDO O ROSTO DA MULHER!!

Isso é um insulto, é imperdoável, devia have uma lei proibindo isso e punindo a loja em 10 vezes o valor do produto.

Isso coloca a mulher em pé de igualdade com os manequins de plástico das vitrines das lojas (que, é bom lembrar, na maioria das vezes tem cabeça).

Até as lojas de chapéus colocam os chapéus em manequins de plastico, em vez de colocar em mulheres de verdade.

 

 



PEC 37 e Reforma Política Já!


Aparentemente a pressao popular e os protestos funcionam mesmo, pois a PEC 37 foi votada e rejeitada por maioria absoluta pela câmara de deputados nesta semana que passou.

Agora falta lutar contra a PEC 99, Feliciano e a cura gay, corrupção, estatuto nascituro e principalmente, antes de tudo (mas não antes da PEC 99), REFORMA POLITICA!



Do Not Go To Brazil


Norwegian Justice


A lot of people are very critical of Norway’s maximum sentence being only 21 years in the face of the mass murders this past Friday. Some are even going so far as to hope that they will raise the sentence limit and apply the new limit to the crime.

 

To the first part of that, within the bounds of international laws and treaties to which it is party, Norway is free to craft its justice system however it wishes. It doesn’t have to fit your idea of justice, or mine, or Burundi’s, or whatever. Furthermore Norway has a very low crime rate, so it is difficult to level much legitimate criticism at it as being dysfunctional in any systematic way.

 

The idea that Norway should alter itsjustice system after the fact and applying it this crime is particularly odious. Regardless of whether you think this sort of emotional knee-jerk change is justified, it is not going to happen. Known as an ex post facto law, they are forbidden by the Norwegian constitution (as well as many other countries’, including the United States’ and Brazil’s, even Iran’s).

 

It is not like Norway is some banana republic rife with crime and corruption. If it were, I would add my voice right along side these critics.

 

I am not going to that one doesn’t rewire ones justice system based on one extraordinary event, Norway may decide that is something they wish to do. I will say that doing it in the heat of the moment is nearly always a bad idea. This is the same sort of emotional spasm that led to the US congress passing, without barely a debate, the tome of civil rights pummeling laws known as the Patriot Act.

 

According to some ideals, 21 years is not enough, but as this is a Norwegian crime, committed in Norway, by a native of that country. It is their ideals that matter here and now.



I’m in the middle of reading two books…


One is “The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements” by Sam Kean. It speaks about the development of the periodic table by telling stories the involve the use of the each element. I’m only in the beginning of the book, thus I wasn’t very surprised perhaps because the explanations were aimed (mostly) at lay people (since I studied chemistry for one and a half year…). But I was perplexed by the tale of  the exploration of Niobium and Tantalum in Congo and its repercussion. Niobium and tantalum are fundamental parts of cell phone batteries (or mostly other electronics batteries) , and are part of the root of conflict in this country – yes, the same country of the “blood diamonds”. It seems it’s not only the diamonds that are bloody after all. At this height  is there anything that comes out of Congo that is not blood tainted?

 

The other book I’m reading is another non-fiction called “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebbeca Skloot. 

I’m in the middle, I’m loving it and there’s so much to say about it that my comment alone would make another book! I’ll write a longer review about it after I’m finished, now all I can say is: highly recommended!



That’s what I was talking about (on my last post)


GoodReads Progress on HeLa

The Immortal Life of HeLa - Goodreads Progress

 

Boyfriend Cary is reading the very same book.



“The Way of All Flesh” by BBC’s Adam Curtis on “HeLa” Cells


I came to know about this video while  reading the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebbeca Skloot – page 81 of the e-book edition, to be more exact.

The video and the words below are embedded from what has been puclished on Google Video.

 

 


 

The Way of All Flesh by Adam Curtis
53:33m – 2 anos atrás

Follows the story of the cells of Henriettta Lacks. She dies in 1951 of cancer, before she died cells were removed from her body and cultivated in a laboratory in the hope that they could help find a cure for cancer. The cells (known as the HeLa line) have been growing ever since, and the scientists found that they were growing in ways they could not control.

 

 If anyone has any problem, concerning copyright, with me embedding this video on my site, please contact me and I’ll be glad to talk to you.



A Rede Bandeirantes, o Pa$tor Evangélico, e o Dinheiro


No domingo passado a Rede Bandeirantes vendeu uma hora de sua programação para o pastor Silas Malafaia, da igreja evangélica Assembléia de Deus, bradar aos quatro ventos o ódio aos homossexuais. Claro que fiquei revoltada com as bravatas e descalabros deste ser evangélico sem noção, mas não vou discutir isso. Vou falar de outra coisa que me irritou. Vou falar da Band.

 

Sempre que a Band vende uma hora de sua programação para terceiros (habitualmente para a Igreja da Graça), eles veiculam, antes do programa iniciar, durante alguns segundos, um aviso comunicando que a Band não é responsável pela produção do programa, e que as opiniões expressas ali não necessariamente representam as opiniões da emissora. Mas será que esse aviso exime a emissora quanto à responsabilidade pelo contéudo que ali é exibido?

 

Eu acho que mídia imparcial é uma utopia, mas a Band tem se saído bem nisso de um modo geral. Porém nesse caso a impressão que eu tenho é que a Band valoriza mais o dinheiro de terceiros do que a idoneidade de seu jormalismo; que é hipócrita. A Band não faz discurso de ódio, mas se qualquer desvairado quiser uma hora na TV para conclamar o país a eliminar os negros, os muçulmanos e os gays… é só ter dinheiro suficiente para comprar uma hora na Band! Está tudo bem, certo? Porque afinal a Band não se responsabiliza pelo discurso deles. Só se responsabiliza pelo benvindo dinheiro do pastor, que, é importante lembrar, vem do bolso de milhares de fiéis que são na maioria pobres, e que ao dar dinheiro à igreja deixam de investir em outras coisas que poderiam de fato melhorar suas vidas. Portanto, ao aceitar o dinheiro do pastor, a Band incentiva o empobrecimento social (e moral) do Brasil.

 

Fazendo uma analogia, é como se um médico fosse pessoalmente anti-aborto, mas, sendo dinheiro das  pacientes muito melhor que os valores morais pessoais do médico, ele fizesse um procedimento abortivo nas mesmas.

 

Também, para realçar a hipocrisia e o amor ao dinheiro acima de tudo, é bom lembrar que a Rede Bandeirantes, na ocasião das propagandas eleitorais obrigatórias, sempre exibe um aviso antes das mesmas começarem, do qual consta algo como “A seguir, propaganda partidária gratuita. O programa a seguir é exibido em conseqüencia de uma lei de cunho autoritário dos tempos da ditadura militar. A Band não se responsabiliza pelo conteúdo.”

 

Mas caso a propaganda gratuita fosse paga, ela não seria tão ruim assim. Pelo menos de acordo com a Band.

 

 



Lula, Cesare Battisti and Italy


In the last day of his mandate, president Lula decided against the extradition of Cesare Battisti, an Italian leftist militant accused of murdering at least four people in Italy in the late 70’s. Lula’s decision was based on his belief that Battisti is politically persecuted and had an unfair trial in Italy. Lula’s act caused animosity in the Italian society. The story of Cesare Battisti is long and filled with polemics and diplomatic friction. Until recently France and Italy were at odds because of Battisti too. But that doesn’t remove the responsability of Brazil’s decision. Did president Lula make the right decision? Is Battisti guilty or innocent? Does that matter?

I think this was another blatant diplomatic goof commited by the Brazilian government. Lula’s decision bears an enormous ideological bias: just like Battisti, Lula was in prison for being a leftist militant. That’s what guided his decision, which instead should have been made assuming that one can’t really know the truth about what Battisti did or did not do – and judging that is up to Italy and no one else. If Italy’s justice system is failed, corrupted and sold out to the mafia, and if because of that Battisti had an unffair trial, that’s NOT  Brazil’s business. That said, one would think Brazil has an exemplar judicial system. But that’s not the case. Brazilian justice is so failed itself that it’s not too much different than Italian justice, and it only has itself to blame for this whole imbroglio. The Brazilian Supreme Court took a long time to decide that Battisti should actually be extradited. But along with that ultimate definitive ruling came a mind-boggling reservation: Brazil’s law says that the real actual ultimate definitive irreversible irrevocable decision about an extradition is up to the President. That’s when Lula entered the story.

Things Lula should have considered:

If Battisti is innocent of the murder accusation and gets extradited: we would have one innocent man spending life in jail for crimes he didn’t commit. Even if  innocent from the murder accusations, Battisti would still be a fugitive from prison, since in 1979 he was arrested and sentenced to 12 years in prison for the crime of participating in an armed group, but escaped from prison a few years later, seeking refuge in France. Anyway, in this case, Brazil would have sent Battisti back to serve the 12 years of jail he was initially sentenced to. Fair enough. But Brazil also would have to live with the fact that it sent a man innocent of murder to spend life in jail (a sentence without a doubt longer and harder than the 12 years Battisti initially got for being a leftist activist).

If  Battisti is innocent of murder and doesn’t get extradited: again, even if one owned the absolute truth and *knew* Battisti was innocent of murder, he would still be a fugitive from prison, since in 1979 he was arrested and sentenced to 12 years in prison for the crime of participating in an armed group, but escaped to France. Diplomatic backlash and commercial jeopardy of Italy-Brazil relations is a certainty.

If Battisti is guilty of murder and gets extradited: we would have one convicted man properly behind bars. The family of the victims and the victims would have justice done. Italy-Brazil diplomacy and business would be safe. Brazil would give a step further in showing that it is not the crime abetting nation of the world. Happy ending for all.

If Battisti is guilty of murder and does not get extradited: Brazil would have to live with the fact that it gave freedom to a man who commited multiple homicide, for the despair and frustration of the victims’ families. It would reinforce its reputation for impunity and crime praisal. Diplomatic backlash and commercial jeopardy of Italy-Brazil relations is a certainty.

Considering the above, and that I do agree that Battisti had an unffair murder trial and should be given the right to a new one, here is how I would (try to) do it: I would extradite him, but under an agreement. I would extradite Battisti, but not because of the murder crime. I would extradite him because he is a fugitive of his first sentence, the 12 years for being part of an armed group. But that only under the condition that the Italian government would cancel the first murder trial and call for a new one, according to the european parliament human rights chamber. I doubt Italy would refuse that. Between not having Battisti, and having him arrested at least for the 12 years he firstly got, you think they’d go for nothing? And that way Brazil would be taking its finger out of their cake while still being fair. But I think our overrated leaders are far from having the wisdom of making choices not biased by ideological views.

Lula himself, President Dilma Rousseff and some people in their staff have been arrested and tortured during the Brazilian military regime because they were considered left wing guerrilla. They were later freed as the military came down, but the military who actually killed people were given amnesty. Last year Lula released the latest reform in Brazil’s National Plan for Human Rights, that, amongst other things, determines that the efforts to investigate the crimes commited during the military dictatorship will extend to investigating crimes of *both* sides, that is, crimes commited by the military, and by the left wing activists. The backlash against that clause was huge and people were calling Lula a traitor for making an agreement that possibly punished his own kind and still wouldn’t change what happened to the military. Judging by what he did with Battisti, apparently Lula only cares about protecting the left wing activists of other countries. Brazil’s can go to hell.



International Women’s Day


Tomorrow, Monday, March 8th, we have International Women’s Day coming.

To remark the importance of such date, me and the psychologist from one of the clinics where I work will be doing a workshop on Women’s Health & Violence Against Women.

The target public is selected women from factories and offices whom, for reasons too long to explain here, end up missing the lectures offered by public primary care facilities¹. The workshops started out last week, and will go on throughout next week as well.  The event is pro bono. The number of atendants ranges from 20-50 women per session. We took care not to extrapolate that number in order to keep quality over quantity, allowing better participation of the public via questions and debate.

I’m the one talking about women’s health, while the psychologist will aproach violence  against women.

I’m trully excited about this since I’m a public health doctor gone rogue, and I miss doing preventive and educational work directly with the public.

I’m writing a little essay on women’s health to be published in the form of a flyer/booklet to be distributed to general public and firms associated with our clinic.

I consider education and information the best weapon to fight violence against women. Im’ still young but in half a decade of seeing all kinds of unimaginable absurdities as a consequence of my work, I know enough no know that education and information are a  critical issue, independent of any religious or racial aspect. If you try to educate someone and they don’t get it the first time, then you try a second time. If they don’t get it the second time, you try a third time. And so on. And if still they don’t get it, someday something will happen to them that will make them understand it . Then they’ll know what you meant. And then my friends, it all pays off. 🙂


¹ In Brazil, public primary care facilities are called “PSF” (Posto de Saúde da Família or Family Healthcare Unit) and/or “ESF”(Estratégia de Saúde da Família or Family Healthcare Strategy) – it’s all the same thing, govt just keep changing names all the time.



Skip to toolbar