#she has beef with EVERY WOMAN IN THE INDUSTRY. she’s clearly the problem. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dwellordream · 3 years

Text

“...Historians concur that live-in domestic service was primarily an urban phenomenon in the late nineteenth century. One estimate suggests that between 15 and 30 percent of northeastern city-dwellers hired live-in domestics. The historian David Katzman, who has generated the most refined statistics, demonstrates that even within relative geographical proximity, city-dwellers hired servants more often than did rural dwellers, and city-dwellers with large pools of foreign labor more than city-dwellers without. Nationwide at midcentury there was one domestic servant for every ten families, with a considerably higher ratio in large cities like Boston and New York.

A greater proportion of Bostonians hired domestic servants than did residents of any other northern city, with 219 servants per thousand families. With traditions of household service born in slavery, even after the Civil War, the South led the nation in its reliance on domestic servants, with Atlanta in 1880 boasting 331 servants per thousand families. Even in the South, though, the difference between city and country was notable, with Atlanta in 1900 hiring four times as many servants per thousand families as in the rest of Georgia. Together these figures suggest the flourishing of an era in the history of Victorianism. It was common for American bourgeois city-dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard, even ones of modest means, to rely on the labor of maids to sustain their households.

Of course, the end of the story is popular cliché. With the opening of more lucrative and less degrading jobs for young women as sales clerks, ‘‘typewriters,’’ and teachers, the ‘‘servant problem’’ became terminal, and by the First World War, American housewives could not depend on the hiring of live-in domestic help to assist them in their housework. It is significant, though, that even when ‘‘necessity’’ suggested the reintegration of daughters into the domestic economy, they were gone for good. The culture had put girls to other uses, from which they would not return to their mothers’ sides.

We still might ask why girls were often excused from domestic labor— especially given the compounding weight of the advice literature recommending otherwise. The answer lies in the increasing role played by daughters and servants in the bourgeois quest for refinement. Even when the gross number of live-in servants declined as production moved out of the home, the hiring of at least one domestic remained a prerequisite for middle-class status. The statistics on who hired servants bear out the middle-classness of this phenomenon, with 65 percent of servants in the Northeast in 1860 working in households with no other servants. In an increasingly mobile and prosperous society, hiring servants was one way to demonstrate standing, a concrete and conspicuous way of demonstrating what you had left behind.

One historian argues that the cultural importance of servants should be measured in the amount that some less prosperous families were willing to spend to hire them—sometimes as much as one-third of family income. Clearly, the freeing of daughters from steady household work and the hiring of domestic servants of lesser, often foreign, status went in tandem with the changing purpose of the home itself. Eighteenth-century households had required helpers to assist in domestic production. The homes of the mid– nineteenth century elite instead featured housework ‘‘as the creation and maintenance of comfort and appearance,’’ in the words of the historian Christine Stansell.

As the Beecher sisters observed, families were increasing ‘‘in refinement’’ such that they no longer wished to live in close intimacy with ‘‘uncultured neighbors,’’ far less daughters of foreign shores, who were working as servants. Thus one mill-owning family in rural Vermont made a point of hiring Irish help rather than the daughters of neighboring farmers, who might object to eating in the kitchen and expect to be ‘‘one of the family.’’ Architects reflected such changes by midcentury, such that servants’ quarters were designed as discrete parts of the house, with back stairs and separate entrances. Custom increasingly favored uniforms and servant dining tables in the kitchen.

At the same time that middle classes aspired to higher standards of comfort and appearance in accordance with new possibilities, women’s primary responsibility shifted from the supervision of a household manufactory to family nurturance, the raising and socializing of children. Much has been written about the evolution of new ideals for motherhood following the American Revolution, as women gained responsibility for raising virtuous citizens. ‘‘Republican mothers’’ shaped new daughters as well as new sons. Initially considered necessary allies in the steady work of processing the stuff of survival, the daughters of middle-class families became themselves the prime products the home produced—the embodiment of the principles of sensibility and refinement.

Mothers’ new responsibilities did not erase old ones. The historian Jeanne Boydston has appropriately criticized the readiness of her colleagues to mistake the ideology of domesticity for reality, arguing that by no means did the productive work of the home cease with the industrial revolution. Instead, Boydston argues, the emphasis on the emotional task of mothering tended to eclipse from view, but not eliminate, the continued real labor—the making of clothing, the putting up of preserves, the carrying of fuel—still carried on in the middle-class home. She is right in her argument that ‘‘paid domestic workers did not free the mistress of the household from labor.’’

But even Boydston acknowledges that domestic servants instead did the work that would have been done by other females in the household—including adult female relatives and daughters. An interesting case in point is the urban family of woman’s rights advocates Henry Blackwell, Lucy Stone, and their daughter Alice Stone Blackwell. As Boydston tells us, Lucy Stone, who was raised on a farm, still kept chickens, worked a garden, and tended a horse and cow, even as she lived a prosperous middle-class existence outside of Boston. Alice Blackwell later remembered that ‘‘she dried all the herbs and put up all the fruits in their season. She made her own yeast, her own bread, her own dried beef, even her own soap.’’

In her lively diary, however, Alice Blackwell reports doing little household work. Such chores as emerge in her diary were designed to interrupt her incessant reading, which was thought to be responsible for her bad headaches. Thus her cousin, visiting the household, ‘‘had undertaken to find me something to stop my reading: churning; and I churned in the cellar till the butter came.’’ In fact, advice writers who had failed in their efforts to promote domestic work for daughters on other grounds often focused on the value of domestic labor as a source of exercise. The Beecher sisters observed that if girls did strenuous housework, their parents would be spared the expense of gymnasiums. ‘‘Does it not seem poor economy to pay servants for letting our muscles grow feeble, and then to pay operators to exercise them for us?’’

Louisa May Alcott, whose collected opus represents a powerful gloss on the domestic debates of late-Victorianism, repeatedly suggested the healthfulness of housework, ‘‘the best sort of gymnastics for girls,’’ according to Dr. Alec in Eight Cousins. Her Old-Fashioned Girl explicitly contrasts the healthy republican daughter skilled in domestic arts with the languid late-Victorian belle, afflicted with boredom because of her lack of home chores. Mothers undoubtedly continued both to supervise and perform much household maintenance, but they did so assisted by domestics rather than their own daughters. What did middle-class girls do instead of housework?

This was a question which greatly concerned commentators, who asked, as did Mary Livermore in 1883, ‘‘What shall we do with our daughters?’’ Mary Virginia Terhune, too, lamented the passing of housework as girls’ raison d’être and with it ‘‘that prime need of a human being—something to do.’’ Parents found a range of things for daughters to do, including the ornamental skills of sewing, playing piano, writing and reading associated with self-culture. Increasingly, also, they sent daughters to school. Common schools designed for both sexes did not include sewing.

In later years, the Beecher sisters observed, ‘‘A girl often can not keep pace with her class, if she gives any time to domestic matters.’’ And they noted, ‘‘Accordingly she is excused from them all during the whole term of her education.’’ Girls themselves noted the increasing power of lessons in any competition with housework. Agnes Hamilton remarked that first her French tutor and then her German homework prevented her from doing her ‘‘share of Monday’s work.’’ It was not long before the work of some girls was reassigned.

Those who were serious about domestic education, such as a composer of ‘‘An Ideal Education of Girls’’ that appeared in an 1886 issue of Education, suggested, in fact, that this disjunction be acknowledged. A girl should receive the same education as a boy until the age of twelve, its author suggested. At that time a girl should drop out of school for two years and learn the complete running of a household, returning to school only with that formal apprenticeship accomplished. Only such complete separation of activities would allow the household its due.”

- Jane H. Hunter, “Daughters’ Lives and the Work of the Middle-Class Home.” in How Young Ladies Became Girls: The Victorian Origins of American Girlhood

#history #victorian #servants #american #jane h. hunter #how young ladies became girls #class

3 notes · View notes

makistar2018 · 5 years

Link

Why Taylor Swift Has No Problem Defending Herself—No Matter the Cost

by BILLY NILLES Jul. 2, 2019

As Taylor Swift approaches her upcoming 30th birthday, happening on December 13 of this year, she's begun taking stock of the things she's learned over the course of her first three decades on the planet. In March, she let fans in on a handful of them—30 of them, to be exact—via a self-penned piece in Elle and near the very top, perhaps belying its importance to the superstar, is the following:

"Being sweet to everyone all the time can get you into a lot of trouble. While it may be born from having been raised to be a polite young lady, this can contribute to some of your life's worst regrets if someone takes advantage of this trait in you. Grow a backbone, trust your gut, and know when to strike back. Be like a snake—only bite if someone steps on you."

As the last few years have proven, Swift has certainly grown unafraid to bite as a means of defending herself and the things she believes in. Not bad for someone whose so-called silence invited accusations of standing for nothing from critics.

Take this weekend's response to the news that celebrity music manager Scooter Braun, whose list of past and present clientele includes Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Kanye West and Demi Lovato, was the new owner of her entire music catalogue, thanks to his media holding company Ithaca Holdings LLC. reaching a "finalized" contract" with Big Machine Label Group, Swift's former record label, to acquire the company. The deal, made for a reported $300 million, includes Big Machine Music, which means that Braun retain ownership of the master recordings of each of the six albums she's released to date, as well as music from other artists such as Reba McEntire, Sheryl Crow and Lady Antebellum. And, as Swift admitted in an incendiary Tumblr post, it left her feeling "sad and grossed out."

After explaining that she'd hoped to own her work prior to departing Big Machine for Universal Music Group (Big Machine's distributor) in November of last year, only to be offered a deal to "'earn' one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in," as she wrote, she walked away from her past so that her future wouldn't be tied to a company that founder Scott Borchetta was clearly intent on selling to the highest bidder.

Jun Sato/TAS18/Getty Images

"Some fun facts about today's news: I learned about Scooter Braun's purchase of my masters as it was announced to the world," she wrote. "All I could think about was the incessant, manipulative bullying I've received at his hands for years."

As she explained in her post, she felt that Scooter's fingerprints were all over West and wife Kim Kardashian West's attempts to assassinate her character in the aftermath of the "Famous" lyrics debacle, which infamously find the rapper claiming that he "made that bitch famous," appearing in a screenshot of a FaceTime call between Bieber and West that the former shared with the since-deleted caption "Taylor swift what up" that she believes was intended to "bully [her] online about it" and allowing then-client West to release "a revenge porn music video which strips my body naked."

"Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it. This is my worst case scenario. This is what happens when you sign a deal at 15 to someone for whom the term 'loyalty' is clearly just a contractual concept. And when that man says, 'Music has value,' he means its value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it," she continued. "When I left my masters in Scott's hands, I made peace with the fact that eventually he would sell them. Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter. Any time Scott Borchetta has heard the words 'Scooter Braun' escape my lips, it was when I was either crying or trying not to. He knew what he was doing; they both did. Controlling a woman who didn't want to be associated with them. In perpetuity. That means forever."

Taylor's move to take the two men involved in the deal to task has, predictably, drawn a line in the sand in the music industry, with folks like Brendon Urie, Halsey, Iggy Azalea, BFF Todrick Hall and other BFF Selena Gomezs mom Mandy Teefey publicly supporting Swift, while Bieber, Lovato, and Scooter's wife Yael Cohen Braun, who accused Swift of bullying her husband by going public with her beef, thereby sending her fan base his way, coming out in support of him.

While the minutiae of the deal and who knew about what when remains unclear, with Borchetta and Cohen Braun both furnishing receipts of some sort in their rebuttals to Swift that challenge her timeline, what is clear is that Swift is speaking up not just to shine a light on an injustice she's experiencing, but also to prevent other impressionable artistic youth from falling prey to the same sort of contract she willingly signed back in her early teens.

"Thankfully, I left my past in Scott's hands and not my future," she wrote. "And hopefully, young artists or kids with musical dreams will read this and learn about how to better protect themselves in a negotiation. You deserve to own the art you make."

It's hardly the first time that Swift has vociferously defended herself while also trying to move the needle forward for those less fortunate than her, be they artists or women in general.

Back in 2013, Swift informed bosses at Denver's KYGO-FM that morning show personality David Mueller had sexually assaulted her, groping her at a meet-and-greet event as they posed for a photo alongside Mueller's then-girlfriend Shannon Melchor. "When we were posing for the photo, he stuck his hand up my dress and grabbed onto my ass cheek," she explained to TIME in 2017. "I squirmed and lurched sideways to get away from him, but he wouldn't let go. At the time, I was headlining a major arena tour and there were a number of people in the room that saw this plus a photo of it happening. I figured that if he would be brazen enough to assault me under these risky circumstances and high stakes, imagine what he might do to a vulnerable, young artist if given the chance. It was important to report the incident to his radio station because I felt like they needed to know. The radio station conducted its own investigation and fired him."

Two years after the radio host saw his employment status at the station go from "current" to "former," he filed suit against Swift, accusing her of lying and suing him for making him lose his job. He wanted $3 million in damages. As result, she brought a countersuit against Mueller for assault and battery, taking him to trial.

AP Photo/Jeff Kandyba

By 2017, she was on the stand, showing an unflappable, steely determination to defend herself in the face of a man who'd wronged her and a legal team intent on discrediting her. When asked why the photos of the incident didn't show the front of her skirt wrinkled as evidence of any wrongdoing, she answered plainly, "Because my ass is located at the back of my body." When she was asked if she felt guilty about Mueller losing his job, she responded, "I'm not going to let you or your client make me feel in any way that this is my fault. Here we are years later, and I'm being blamed for the unfortunate events of his life that are the product of his decisions—not mine."

In the end, the jury threw out Mueller's unfair dismissal case, ruling in Swift's favor, awarding the singer the symbolic $1 dollar she'd asked for. In a statement released after the verdict was rendered, she said, "I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this. My hope is to help those whose voices should also be heard. Therefore, I will be making donations in the near future to multiple organizations that help sexual assault victims defend themselves."

A year later, Swift spoke to fans during a Tampa, Fla. stop on her Reputation Stadium Tour about the incident, thanking them for sticking by her during a "really, really horrible" time in her life. "I just think about all the people that weren't believed, or the people who haven't been believed, or the people who are afraid to speak up because they don't think they will be believed," Swift said. "And I just want to say that I'm sorry to everyone who ever wasn't believed because I don't know what turn my life would have taken if people hadn't believed in me when I said that something happened."

Over the years, Swift has also used her superstar muscle to advocate for what she believes she and all other artists deserve during this streaming revolution. In 2014, after penning an article for the Wall Street Journal in which she argued that "music should not be free" and that artists shouldn't "underestimate themselves or undervalue their art," she pulled her entire discography from Spotify.

"Music is changing so quickly, and the landscape of the music industry itself is changing so quickly, that everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment," Swift told Yahoo that November, defending her position. "And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists and creators of this music. And I just don't agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free."

Instagram

The following June, she penned an open letter to fans, explaining why they wouldn't be able to find her latest album, 1989, wouldn't be made available on Apple Music once the service launched. As she explained, her issue lay with Apple Music's decision not to pay artists during its free three-month trial for users to sign up. "I'm not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company," she wrote, adding that she was speaking on behalf of fellow musicians who had some hesitation at speaking out against the tech company.

"These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call," she added. "We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."

A day later, Apple announced that it would, indeed, be paying artists during the free trial period."When I woke up this morning and saw what Taylor had written, it really solidified that we needed a change," Apple's senior vice president of internet services and software Eddy Cue told Billboard in an interview after tweeting that the company was changing course. "And so that's why we decide we will now pay artists during the trial period."

By 2017, in time to celebrate 1989 selling over 10 million albums worldwide and, maybe, to tweak then-frenemy Katy Perry's launch of new album Witness, Swift's music was back on Spotify and added to Amazon Music and Google Play as well.

At every turn, Swift has revealed herself to be someone who has certainly found that backbone she wrote about in Elle. After West claimed he made her famous, he accepted Album of the Year at the 58th Grammy Awards with a speech that didn't mention the rapper by name, but spoke to him just the same. "As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I wanna say to all the young women out there: There are going to be people along the way who will try to undercut your success, or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame," she said. "But if you just focus on the work and you don't let those people sidetrack you, someday when you get where you're going, you'll look around and you'll know that it was you and the people who love you that put you there, and that will be the greatest feeling in the world."

When Kardashian West branded her a snake as she shared the questionably-recorded audio of a phone call between Swift and West as he was crafting "Famous," she took the animal iconography on as a central motif in her next album and tour, which became the highest-grossing domestic tour by a woman ever.

"A few years ago, someone started an online hate campaign by calling me a snake on the internet," Swift wrote in Elle. "The fact that so many people jumped on board with it led me to feeling lower than I've ever felt in my life, but I can't tell you how hard I had to keep from laughing every time my 63-foot inflatable cobra named Karyn appeared onstage in front of 60,000 screaming fans. It's the Stadium Tour equivalent of responding to a troll's hateful Instagram comment with 'lol.'"

When speaking with a German news outlet to promote new single "ME!" in May, she was asked if her 30th birthday meant she was going to settle down, get married and have kids soon. She shut that s--t down, saying, "I really do not think men are asked that question when they turn 30. So I'm not going to answer that."

As she's become more politically active, endorsing progressive candidates in her adopted home state of Tennessee, emphatically calling out President Trump, and advocating on behalf of the LGBTQIA community during this most recent Pride Month, after years of being criticized for sitting silently on the sidelines, she's opened herself up to criticism from those who wish their pop stars would shut up—unless they're spouting views identical to their own, of course. But it's no different to the criticism she faced when she was silent, or when she dared to demand fair compensation for her art, or when she simply wanted to be believed as a victim of sexual assault. All of which she's learned to look past.

"I learned to block some of the noise," she wrote in Elle. "Social media can be great, but it can also inundate your brain with images of what you aren't, how you're failing, or who is in a cooler locale than you at any given moment. One thing I do to lessen this weird insecurity laser beam is to turn off comments...I'm also blocking out anyone who might feel the need to tell me to 'go die in a hole ho' while I'm having my coffee at nine in the morning. I think it's healthy for your self-esteem to need less internet praise to appease it, especially when three comments down you could unwittingly see someone telling you that you look like a weasel that got hit by a truck and stitched back together by a drunk taxidermist. An actual comment I received once."

As for those in real life who are bringing her strife—like, say, Braun and Borchetta, currently—she's got a plan for dealing with that, as well.

"Banish the drama. You only have so much room in your life and so much energy to give to those in it," she wrote. "Be discerning. If someone in your life is hurting you, draining you, or causing you pain in a way that feels unresolvable, blocking their number isn't cruel. It's just a simple setting on your phone that will eliminate drama if you so choose to use it."

In other words, put quite simply, she's learned how to shake it off.

E! News

#taylor swift #2019.07.02 #scooter braun is a piece of shit

24 notes · View notes

chinesegal · 6 years

Text

An open letter to an asshole

“”Barely a day ago I came across the smoldering heap of garbage known as the article “ You Dress Up For Farmageddon “. It was posted on a blog known as dan-mindless. Dan the mindless militant moroni radveeg is apparently veeeeeeeeeeeeeryyyy angry that an ex-vegetarian woman named Jenna Woginrich has decided to become a farmer, so much that he has decided to write his reactionary brainfarts on the internet for all to see. Unluckily for him, I will mock every thing he says and prove that his mind truly is as empty as his name suggests.

Lets begin.

“ You probably thought that Melanie Phillips wrote the most aggravating newspaper article recently, and, yeah, she did. But Jenna Woginrich's article, which was brought to my attention when Michael Legge got angry about it on his blog, is the one that has sparked genuine human emotion in me.”

Human emotions? Sure, asshole. Anyway, both you and your big idol Legge are pretentious militant vegan twats I usually ignore, I’m just gonna say that.

“ Woginrich stopped being vegetarian because she loves animals. "Don't you mean started being a vegetarian?" I hear you ask. Nope. "Don't you mean because she hates animals?" You continue. Nope. She loves animals so much, that not only did she start eating them again, but she farms them herself. “

Dude, (or woman or enby, I don’t care) you are saying that if you eat meat, you hate animals. That is the most infuriatingly idiotic statement I have seen in a long time. Also, Jenna realized that her problem with meat was because of how the animal was raised, not that it had to die. That might be an opinion you strongly disagree with, but I don’t.

“ I get irrationally angry when I hear this fashionable, middle-class claim that battery farming is an infringement of the rights of animals, so people should only buy free range products. If you are going to give animals rights, give them the right to life. Otherwise whats the point? I know it is better for animals to be farmed uncaged, of course it is, but either way they're going to get eaten.”

Irrational is practically your middle name, fucker. As queen of the evil beef-devouring bloodmouths I dub thee sir Dan-irrational-maggothead-fuckwit Mindless.

But anyway, let’s get this straight: Trying to improve welfare standards for animal agriculture, an industry that won’t go away anytime soon is “fashionable” and “middle-class” but assuming that every single human on the planet can go vegan or vegetarian is not? And no vegan or vegetarian is rich and middle-class?

“ In a way I have more time for people who say animals have no rights at all. At least they're consistent. Unlike this claim that animals should have some rights, but not the biggie. It's as if the likes of Woginrich don't actually care about animals at all. I'm not saying they just do the free range thing because its The Guardian-friendly and generally groovy, without any genuine concern for animals at all. Oh wait, yes I am, that's exactly what I'm saying. “

Dear sir Fuckwit, there is NOTHING inconsistent about wanting higher welfare standards instead of envisioning a completely vegan world. And you don’t know Woginrich or her feelings about animals. Who in the seven hells and heavens would actually become a farmer, something that takes a lot of skill, preparation and hard work just for attention?

“ Woginrich's article is also infuriating because it contains bizarre phrases that make no fucking sense, such as:For me, it took a return to carnivory to live out the ideals of vegetarianism. Food is a complicated religion. Let's consider that for a second. I'll ignore the phrase "Food is a complicated religion" because it seems that's what she did as she wrote it. She claims that she returned to carnivory in order to fulfil "the ideals of vegetarianism." Now I'm no expert, I'm fairly new to vegetarianism, but I think, I think, the ideals of vegetarianism involve not eating meat. And, again I may be wrong, but I think carnivory involves eating meat. So she eats meat in order to live the life of not eating meat. “

Actually, Woginrich has explained before that she realized her vegetarian diet was far from cruelty-free. Therefore she decided to open up a homestead and grow much of her own food which believe it or not, causes less harm than both the diets of most practising scavengers AND vegans.

“ This sense of smug self-satisfaction that oozes out of Woginrich's article is sickening. She, like all the rich, middle-class people who sanctimoniously advocate free range produce as a great kindness to animals, looks down her nose at the people who can't afford free range and organic food, and also at vegetarians, the people who unlike her, genuinely give a shit about animals. “

The “smug self-satisfaction” you are preaching about wouldn’t even be a drop in a swimming pool compared to your holier-than-thou ass, mr Fuckwit.

Also, a militant vegan calling someone “sanctimonious” literally gave me brain cancer from the lack of self-awareness. And oh, “rich, middle-class”? Women who are ranchers only make around 35000 dollars a year, maggotbrain. And lastly, I, an evil bloodmouth looks down my pinocchio-sized nose from the top of mount Everest on militant radveegs like you who honestly believe that anyone who doesn’t live your lifestyles is a disney villain. Really, all the people I have known who are closest to nature AND amazing people I’m gonna tag at the end of this aren’t yuppie radveegs in 3-story condos but hunters, trappers and general animal-welfarists.

“ Woginrich has confused the notion of caring about animals with the notion of being a big cunt. She runs her own farm, and I think it takes a certain kind of person to personally kill an animal. Most meat eaters would probably feel uneasy about actually killing an animal themselves, and anyone who actually cares about animals in the slightest would never kill an animal, unless they were a vet or the animal was clearly suffering. To actually personally kill an animal to eat it takes someone with no care for animals.”

“Cunt”? Don’t say that you are a misogynist too, mr Mindless. Why do I get the feeling that you would be the kind of person to harass women online?

You called every single farmer on the planet a psychopath, wow. Tell that to my mother. You see, she was raised by her mother and father, my maternal grandparents to be precise. Both of them grew up in rural China and learned to butcher animals from an early age. Despite living in a country with a long history of religious vegetarianism. But my mother and every family member I know knew him as a caring, compassionate man who made sure his daughter had everything she needed. She would suckerpunch you in the face if she knew you called him a murderer.

“ So I'll leave you with the (slightly altered) words of the great philosopher Peter Singer: "All animals are equal. Except Jenna Woginrich. She's just a cunt." “

Calling a woman an animal, how proglessive (sexist).

And finally, fuckwit makes snide little remarks about how anyone is supposed to take Woginrich’s recommendations for buying from small-scale farmers seriously if she is one herself, and to that I say one thing: Go Fuck Yourself.

@dairyisntscary @agro-carnist @avatar-dacia @defilerwyrm @hostilepopcorn @smellyoldblanket @shitpetasays @zooophagous @trapperweasel @discourseful @thehornedwitch @unsuspectingfish @younghaunting

#militant vegans #diet evangelists #small-scale farming #bloodmouth pride

6 notes · View notes

mrswearword · 7 years

Video

youtube

In “honor” of this video’s premiere at the VMAs, let me go open season on this petty bitchfest.

The lead single from sssssssssinger/ssssssssssssssongwriter/SSSSSSSSNEK joke Taylor Swift’s upcoming album Reputation. Let’s get this out of the way right now. All of this “beef” with Katy Perry over backup dancers is some misguided PR stunt to combat the media attention in pitting female artists against one another. Or at least it better be because if “Swish Swish” was indeed a diss track against Swift and “Look What You Made Me Do” is indeed the response song, they’re both petty, childish, inept excuses for women in the music industry.

Especially ol’ SNEK Wrangler herself, Swift if the best she can do in this petty pissing contest is an immature chorus of “Look what you made me do”. Yeah, apparently at some point she was considered a sharp lyricist. Time flies when you’re so full of shit, the toilet is suing you for copyright infringement.

“Petulant utterance no one above the age of 13 should use” at least in production terms is legitimate pop ground Swift is experimenting with; having her music sound as juvenile and as near psychotic for no reason as apparently, she is over a bunch of fucking backup dancers that you can replace is weirdly fitting or “on brand”. The first few lines read as “I don’t like your little games/Don’t like your tilted stage/The role you made me play; as the fool/no I don’t like you”. She actually sings “No, I don’t like you.” Being blunt is one thing but what the hell made her think this was acceptable as a lyric? Again, she has apparently been considered as a great lyricist among her peers cough, BULLSHIT, cough cough. One line in particular which had two major fandoms in Kanye stans and Little Monsters think this song [or this line] was about Kanye or Gaga was “I don’t like your tilted stage”. Leave it to human Twitter stan, Zachary Campbell to point out that Katy [who this song is about, release date of Reputation be damned] had tilted stagework for her Superbowl Halftime performance. Reexamine the lyric video for “I don’t like your little games” and “don’t” is a knight or a black horse or in context…a “Dark Horse”. What could potentially give away the fact that this was a PR stunt gone awry or at least should give it away is the lyric “The role you had me play; of the fool” with emphasis on “The role you had me play”. It’s more than likely that Taylor is trying and failing miserably at making a larger point as a woman in the music industry, specifically with women being pitted against each other in the music industry. Perhaps, she and Katy are in on the whole thing and this manufactured beef was supposed to teach us all that pitting artist against artist over backup dancers is pointless and that blah blah look at the lyrics for these two and see if they actually had the ability to make this a larger picture about women in the industry.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Swift continues to petulantly write out “I don’t like your perfect crime/How you laugh when you lie/you said the gun was mine; isn’t cool”. To Swift, all I ask is what perfect crime did Katy commit, if all this feuding boils down to is you looking petty over expendable tour personnel? If the worst she ever did was refer to you as “the Regina George in sheep’s clothing” on Twitter, why the hell have you actively come out taking verbal swipes at her years later in a song for your upcoming release which will more than likely be a mediocre at best album? The remaining lyrics here are probably vanilla, trite and vague jabs at the court of public opinion or something of the sort.

Then, the lyrical pyrite from Swift’s amygdala controlled pen gets worse. The pre-chorus reads “But I got smarter/I got harder/in the nick of time/Honey, I rose up from the dead/I do it all the time/I got a list of names/and yours is in red, underlined/I check it once/then I check it twice…ooh” cracks knuckles oh boy, is there a lot wrong with how these lyrics present themselves from someone more pissed at some other singer for using backup dancers instead of say; Kim Kartrashian or Kanye West for the Snapchat incident no matter how much of a two-faced bitch she ended up coming across. First, let’s take a look at “I got smarter/I got harder/in the nick of time” which only makes sense when you consider her putting her catalog of 6-9 actual good songs and dozens of other middling shit back on Spotify the day Katy Perry’s album Witness was released. Yeah, Swift was smarter in releasing “Look What You Made Me Do” the same day Katy’s video for Swish Swish was released. All these moves made “in the nick of time” were apparently to spite Katy again, for using backup dancers. Hey Taylor, want to spite Katy Perry of all people with minimal effort? Show her pictures of your Grammy awards and MOVE ON.

Second, there’s the line of “Honey, I rose up from the dead/I do it all the time”. The only death she went through was well after 1989 had wrapped up and Kim Kartrashian’s Snapchat videos of Kanye calling her about the “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex” line in “Famous” and her trying to weasel her way out of saying it’s OK to use but then be all pretentious Grammy speech that means nothing given the circumstances. Coming back from that, months later after relatively keeping her mouth shut about a lot of things isn’t that frequent for her. Alas, here she is acting like a fucking phoenix from the ashes of losing out on acclaim for her album and era all because of Snapchat videos. Keep in mind, she still won the Album of the Year Grammy for 1989 in spite of SNEKgate. Third, “I got a list of names/and yours is in red, underlined”; bitch, who the fuck are you fooling acting like you’re The Bride from Kill Bill about to kill Vernita Green or O’Ren Ishii? Have several seats. The other line not dissected still sucks but what’s next is the petulant as fuck chorus.

“Look What You Made Me Do/Look What You Made Me Do/Look What You Just Made Me Do, Look What You Just Made Me…ooh” is already a poorly written chorus but probably just sanitized enough for Swift because she couldn’t sell “you got me so fucked up” or anything that could be considered well written in this mood of hers. Then, there’s the second set of lyrics which are less directed at Perry and more sounding like vague-posting on Facebook [or “vague-booking”] about someone who did her wrong. Well, at least after the contradictory lyric “I don’t like your kingdom keys/they once belonged to me”. So, if they were your keys to your kingdom, how did she get them but you still hate them…oh wait, it’s a shit lyric so who cares. Then, the vague-booking lyrics kick in; “You asked me for a place to sleep/locked me out/and threw a feast”. Two words to solve this problem; SPARE KEYS. What proceeds to be sung next is all this “My karma’s gonna run over your dogma” bumper sticker bullshit which begs the question…you’re really choosing to be this petty to someone and it’s apparently not a publicity stunt? Over backup dancers? REALLY?!

The bridge for this song further drives this manufactured tiff over the edge when she histrionically sings “I don’t trust nobody and nobody trusts me/I’ll be the actress starring in your bad dreams” four times in a row [someone please tell me where the hell the alleged lyrical genius of Taylor Swift is if she can’t deliver lyrics better than a double negative and a high fallutin’ way of saying nightmare] before delivering a spoken word declaration so wannabe teenage angst ridden, Lorde should sue her for plagiarism. “I’m sorry, the old Taylor can’t come to the phone right now. Why? Oh, ‘cause she’s dead.”

What else is that spoken word portion supposed to prove other than that aggression delivered by Taylor Swift reads as girl drama over nothing. Hell, the “oh, ‘cause she’s dead” bit sounds like her pulling that from her ass in the middle of recording it. “I need to explain why old Taylor isn’t coming to the phone…” “Taylor, we’re recording this” “…OH ‘CAUSE SHE’S DEAD.” “Fuck it, we’ll keep that in anyway.”

Overall, Taylor Swift’s latest stunt is a disgraceful, vindictive, bitchy effort which smears the reputation of every female songwriter past and present and upcoming if they’re dumb enough to listen to this and get songwriting inspiration. Then again, this is the same manic lunatic dumb enough to pull her catalog from Spotify when streaming was starting to count in music sales all in the name of “artist representation”. This is the same publicity craving stunt queen who once used her fans to improve upon her “can do no wrong” image in the name of Christmas present reaction videos on YouTube. This is the same person who takes after Lena Dunham’s interpretation of feminism which apparently means “anyone who doesn’t like what I do must clearly not be a feminist.”

The video itself? Empty gloss, self-deprecating humor that only worked on “Shake it Off” and Taylor acting like her videos have that many memorable looks. A 1/10 just like the song itself.

#Taylor Swift #Look What You Made Me Do #LWYMMD #Katy Perry #Petty Drama #Pop Singer Drama #VMAs #2017 #2017 VMAs #MTV #MTV VMAs

1 note · View note

veronicarwells · 7 years

Text

Why We’re Team Keke Palmer In This Trey Songz Beef

This weekend, while women across the country and the world marched for equal rights, Keke Palmer found herself dealing with a man who simply couldn’t take no for an answer, singer Trey Songz to be specific.

Before we go any further, I should be very clear that it wasn’t a rape type situation but it was a case of a woman being exploited despite her explicit instruction. Basically, Keke Palmer was at Trey Songz’s house in Miami for a party when he started shooting scenes for the video for his song, “Pick Up the Phone.” Trey and his people asked Keke several times if she would star in it. And she declined several times. Instead of honoring her request not to be featured, it wasn’t long before a tweet revealed that she was, in fact, in the video.

Keke explained.

Keke released a video explaining exactly what happened at the party, how the situation became extremely uncomfortable and why she felt the need to hide in the first place.

A video posted by Laurennnn Palmer (@kekepalmer) on Jan 21, 2017 at 5:57pm PST

A video posted by Laurennnn Palmer (@kekepalmer) on Jan 21, 2017 at 6:26pm PST

As you might assume, it wasn’t long before Trey responded. Earlier in the day, after he celebrated the Queens marching for women’s equality, he responded to Keke’s claims.

Then for show, he tweeted a gif of Michelle Obama as if our former first lady would cosign this sh*t.

I’ll admit that I’m one of those women who is inclined to give women the benefit of the doubt, to believe her word when there isn’t clear evidence for either side. But in this instance, it’s pretty much a no-brainer. If Trey had Keke’s permission to put her in the video, he simply would have tweeted that. But he didn’t. Instead, he logged onto Twitter to say he don’t do Twitter sh*t. If he was going to break his habits and traditions, what he should have done was uploaded some receipts, i.e. a release form with her signature on it saying she agreed to be in the video. Saying she was sitting around “saw the camera and the lights, heard action” is not consent for her image to be used. And I’m sure being that she’s known Trey for so long, she didn’t think that he would violate her in this way after she specifically and repeatedly told him she didn’t want to be in the video.

If you listen to the lyrics of the song for which the video was shot, you might understand why Keke had a problem with it.

[Verse 1: MIKExANGEL] Yeah, I met that bitch at a party I swear that liquor got it started Bit tits like Dolly Excuse me, beg your pardon Yeah, I do this shit often Stone Cold like Austin What this life style costin’ And these bitches wanna see me Swear this drippin’ ain’t easy Now she sayin’ that she need me I palm her pussy like Keke Like Keke, like Keke She know I’m go act the fool with it Tell me she gon’ let my bros hit it Throwin’ that pussy, I go get it Go get it

For as much as people want to say they’re disgusted by Donald Trump and his comments about women, he’s not the only one. Perhaps this is why so many voters didn’t find his “grab her by the pussy” a disqualification of him holding the highest office in the land. Because, hell, so many men talk like that. This past weekend there were hundred of thousands of women protesting against Trump and his comments, among other things. These are the same women Trey claimed to support. Still, he lent his voice to a song like this. And wanted to force Keke Palmer to be a part of it when it was her name that was being referenced, her reputation that was on the line.

I’ve heard what people have to say about Keke Palmer these days. They have a problem with the way she dresses, the way she speaks, the way she dances, the music she releases, her extra-ness. But the point is, these are all choices she’s clearly and comfortably made for herself. And at the very end of the day, the girl has business acumen. She knew not to make a decision that could affect her brand, her image, her career at a damn house party when she’s been drinking. And just because folks see her as “wild” and attention-seeking, it doesn’t give Trey Songz or anyone else the right to dictate how they want to use her image for their commercial gain. It’s vile and a complete dismissal and disregard for her autonomy and voice as a woman.

To that point, here’s a bit of advice for you ladies out there. Beware of these Black men who will call you Queens one minute and then flip the script when you don’t do what they want. I’m not a queen to you if you don’t want me to use my voice. I’m not a queen if you try to trick or manipulate me into doing something I repeatedly told you I don’t want to do. I’m not a queen to you if you try to make money off my face, my body, my image but don’t respect my mind. It’s just that simple.

Quite a few people asked why didn’t Keke just leave the house. In the videos above she explained that her Uber was going to take too long to get there and so she felt her best course of action was to hide in a closet. Trey found her in there and assured her that if she didn’t feel comfortable, she wouldn’t be filmed. And yet, the video was released. (It’s since been removed.) What type of decency is that? Forget the man, woman, misoygnoir-ness of this whole situation, at the end of the day, according to Keke, dude is just not a man of his word. You told her one thing when you had every intention of doing the complete opposite.

And after he disrespected Keke as a woman, as a “friend,” and as a person, he wants her to be mature and handle the situation in private. You’ve got to be kidding me! They were in private when she told him she didn’t want to be in the video. They were in private when she called a Uber to get out of his house. They were in private when she hid in a closet to avoid what he ended up doing to her anyway. And now that she’s been publicly associated with a song that talks about grabbing her pussy, he wants her to call him out on your shenanigans behind closed doors. For what?! Apparently, Trey couldn’t hear Keke when she was speaking to him privately. If he had, she wouldn’t have been in the video. So it only makes sense that since the video was released publicly, she address him publicly and make him answer to the public for this violation. And aside from “she heard action,” he hasn’t been able to. The fact that the video has been removed from the internet speaks volumes. Warner Bros. probably didn’t do all of this talking, trying to get both sides of the story. They likely don’t give a damn about women’s rights. I would bet money that what they did do was ask Trey and his people for the release that contained Keke’s signature. And when they couldn’t produce it, they snatched that sh*t down. Because they don’t want these type of problems for a mediocre song, not a weekend after the women’s march. Not for a song that basically quotes our controversial new president. Hell nah.

Besides the misogyny, besides being an indecent person in this moment, Trey Songz just wasn’t smart about all of this. He’s been in the industry too long to think this was going to fly. Or perhaps he’s so accustomed to pulling stunts like this, to manipulating and tricking women into doing things they don’t want to, that he thought Keke would just take it. But he thought wrong. This is not the time, that was not the place and Keke is clearly not the one.

Veronica Wells is the culture editor at MadameNoire.com. She is also the author of “Bettah Days.” You can follow her on Facebook and Twitter @VDubShrug.

#keke palmer #trey songz #misogyny #misogynoir

6 notes · View notes

sherristockman · 7 years

Link

Chicken Meat Linked to Drug-Resistant UTI Epidemic Dr. Mercola By Dr. Mercola In the 2013 report “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States” issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 18 superbugs were identified as “urgent, serious and concerning threats” to humankind.1 The majority of these dangerous bacteria are in the gram-negative category, as they are equipped with body armor that makes them particularly resistant to the immune response. Most disturbing of all, an increasing number of bacteria are now exhibiting “panresistance,” 2 which means they’re resistant to every antibiotic in existence. The emergence of E. coli carrying the drug-resistant mcr-1 gene is also major cause for worry. While this bacterium is most commonly thought of in terms of food poisoning, a form of E. coli known as ExPEC (which stands for extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli) is responsible for over 90 percent of urinary tract infections (UTIs).3 Beware — 10 Percent of UTIs Are Drug-Resistant Interestingly, while conventional wisdom has maintained that UTIs are primarily caused by sexual contact with an infected individual and/or the transferring of fecal bacteria from your anus to your urethra, research has linked drug-resistant UTIs to contaminated chicken meat.4 This is not a surprise once you realize that over 80 percent of the antibiotics used in the U.S. are given to animals raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and it’s rare for commercial chickens to not be raised in a CAFO environment. Scientists have indeed warned that infectious disease could potentially spread through the food supply, and when it comes to UTIs, DNA matching overwhelmingly supports this hypothesis. In other words, many UTIs are caused by zoonosis, meaning animal to human disease transfer.5,6,7 Of the 8 million UTIs occurring in the U.S. each year, an estimated 10 percent — some 800,000 — are resistant to antibiotics. Drug resistance has become common enough that doctors are now advised to test for drug resistance before prescribing an antibiotic for a UTI. Drug Resistant Bacteria Can Turn Urinary Tract Infections Deadly The mcr-1 gene was discovered in pigs and people in China in 2015.8,9,10 It’s a mutated gene that confers rapid resistance to the drug colistin — an antibiotic of last resort due to its potency and nasty side effects. Its DNA also contains seven other genes that confer resistance against other antibiotics. Researchers have warned that the features of mcr-1 “suggest the progression from extensive drug resistance to pan drug resistance11 [i.e., bacteria resistant to all treatment] is inevitable,” and this threat is a global one.12 Indeed, in less than one year, mcr-1-carrying E.coli was identified in several parts of the world, including a U.S. slaughterhouse pork sample and an American patient admitted with an E. coli infection.13,14,15 Writing for National Geographic, Maryn McKenna reported:16 “The woman who was carrying an E. coli containing resistance to the last-resort antibiotic colistin went for medical care because she had what felt like a routine urinary tract infection, a UTI for short … A small, dedicated corps of researchers has been trying for years to emphasize that these infections represent a serious danger, an unexamined conduit of bacterial resistance from agriculture and meat into the human population, and have mostly been dismissed … Colistin was seldom used in people until recently because it is toxic, but agriculture has been using it enthusiastically for decades, which has seeded resistance through the bacterial world. And those highly drug-resistant bacteria are turning up in urinary-tract infections. Why UTIs? Because E. coli bacteria are carried in feces, which can easily spread to the urethra and cause urinary-tract infections, especially in women … [W]hen UTIs go untreated — which is effectively what happens when the antibiotic administered for them doesn’t work — they climb up the urinary system from the bladder, into the kidneys, and thence into the bloodstream. At that point, the minor problem becomes literally life-threatening.” DNA Matching Proves UTI Superbug Can Spread Via Contaminated Chicken Meat As mentioned, a number of mcr-1-related infections in humans have been linked to consumption of contaminated meat. For example, the gene was detected in the blood of a Danish patient in late 2015, and mcr-1 was also found in five poultry samples purchased in Denmark that were imported from Germany between 2012 and 2014.17 Again, part of the problem goes back to the fact that antibiotics — including colistin, in the case of Chinese poultry production — have remained widely used in agriculture for growth promotion purposes, allowing resistance to develop. This despite the fact that agricultural use of antibiotics has been suspected of causing human infections since at least 2001. As early as 2005 papers were published showing drug-resistant E. coli strains from supermarket meat matched strains found in human E. coli infections.18 As reported by The Atlantic in 2012:19 “[T]he origin of these newly resistant E. coli has been a mystery — except to a small group of researchers in several countries. They contend there is persuasive evidence that the bacteria are coming from poultry. More precisely, coming from poultry raised with the routine use of antibiotics … Their research20,21,22 in the United States, Canada, and Europe … has found close genetic matches between resistant E. coli collected from human patients and resistant strains found on chicken or turkey sold in supermarkets or collected from birds being slaughtered. The researchers contend that poultry … is the bridge that allows resistant bacteria to move to humans, taking up residence in the body and sparking infections when conditions are right. Touching raw meat that contains the resistant bacteria, or coming into environmental contact with it — say, by eating lettuce that was cross-contaminated — are easy ways to become infected.” Flies and Contaminated Manure May Also Spread Drug Resistant Gene Aside from consumption of contaminated meat, flies have also been identified as a carrier of the mcr-1 gene. According to PBS:23 “Flies at poultry farms in China were loaded with bacteria containing genes for antibiotic resistance, the team discovered. The same team also found E. coli containing mcr-1, a gene that imparts resistance to colistin, an antibiotic of last resort, in 1 percent of hospital patients in two of China’s large cities, neither of which have a history of using colistin to treat humans. They also discovered in the hospitals genes that offer resistance to carbapenems, another class of last-resort antibiotics. Researchers think the flies carried the bacteria from farms to cities, where they transmitted the bacteria to humans. Carriers like these flies could be more commonplace, suggesting the need for experts to keep a watchful eye on superbugs’ paths.” For over a decade we’ve also known antibiotic-resistant bacteria are present in agricultural soils, typically deposited there via contaminated manure and/or so-called biosolids (toxic sewage waste),24 and this is yet another route into the food system. Sadly, even organic gardeners may inadvertently contaminate their home garden by applying potting soil with biosolids. Researchers at the University of Southampton are trying to understand the situation better by studying “how antimicrobial resistance is introduced into natural soil bacteria, for example from manures applied by farmers or exposure to domesticated or wild animal and bird fecal droppings, and how this transfer takes place in different soil types.”25 To Protect Your Health, Avoid Antibiotics — Both in Medicine and Food — and Practice Safe Hygiene The use of low-dose antibiotics allows meat producers to add weight on animals for less money because they make feed absorption more efficient. The drugs also help prevent disease outbreaks in the crowded and unsanitary housing conditions that concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are notorious for. But just how high a price are we willing to pay for cheaper meat? Tens of thousands of Americans now die each year from drug-resistant infections, many of which clearly appear to be spread through our food supply. Some chicken producers have started reining in or eliminating medically unnecessary antibiotics in their production, but not all. Sanderson Farms for example, which is the third-largest poultry producer in the U.S., has refused to even acknowledge the risks associated with the practice. They are a reprehensible company; they market themselves as “all natural” even though they load up their chickens with antibiotics. And, while experts have urged the food industry to cease use of antibiotics, data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests agricultural use is actually increasing rather than decreasing. According to the FDA’s 2014 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals,26 domestic sales and distribution of cephalosporins for food-producing animals rose by 57 percent between 2009 through 2014. So, what can you do to protect yourself? Three key steps are to: Avoid antibiotics unless absolutely necessary, and remember antibiotics do NOT work for viral infections Avoid all meats raised with antibiotics. Your best bet is organic grass fed and grass-finished beef and organic pastured poultry raised without antibiotics. This is a serious issue, so if you chose to eat meat, make sure it’s antibiotic-free Practice good personal hygiene. This includes carefully washing your hands before and after you handle raw chicken, making sure to wash between your fingers and under your nails, and be sure to wash any utensils and kitchen counters when done. Ideally, use separate cutting boards for meats and vegetables to avoid cross-contamination How to Treat UTIs Without Antibiotics You've probably heard that drinking cranberry juice can be helpful in supporting a healthy urinary tract and can help flush out a UTI. However, most cranberry juice is also loaded with fructose, which tends to promote health problems when consumed in high amounts. For this reason, I don’t recommend drinking cranberry juice when you have an infection. Since your immune system is already taxed, adding fructose into the mix is inadvisable. A far better alternative is pure D-mannose, which is the active ingredient in cranberry juice responsible for its benefit to your urinary system. It can also be derived from berries, peaches, apples and other plants. Pure D-mannose is 10 to 50 times stronger than cranberry and has been shown to cure over 90 percent of UTIs within one to two days. It’s nontoxic and completely safe, with no adverse effects. I also recommend trying D-mannose before you resort to antibiotics, to avoid killing off beneficial bacteria. Digestive problems and secondary yeast infections are common side effects of antibiotics. D-mannose doesn't actually kill bacteria — it just renders them unable to stay in your urinary tract. The cell walls of E. coli are covered with tiny fingerlike projections called fimbria, made of a glycoprotein called lectin that makes them sticky. This allows them to cling to the inner walls of your bladder and even work their way upward to your ureter and kidneys. The lectin on the bacteria's fimbria binds to mannose, which naturally covers the internal lining of your urinary organs. This is why they’re so difficult to flush out. When you take D-mannose, the E. coli suddenly find mannose molecules present not only on the surface of your epithelial cells, but also in the urine. As they latch on to the mannose in your urine, they are easily expelled through your urine. To help flush the bacteria out, be sure to drink plenty of clean, pure water to encourage plentiful urination. To alleviate the burning sensation, dissolve 1 teaspoon of baking soda in 8 ounces of water and drink the whole glass first thing in the morning. Its alkaline nature can help neutralize or lessen the acidity of your urine, thereby making urination less uncomfortable. Pay Attention to Symptoms of Kidney Infection and Sepsis While D-mannose has a track record of working quickly and effectively in most cases, with the advent of drug-resistant bacteria, be sure to take any UTI seriously and watch for signs and symptoms of kidney infection and/or sepsis, both of which will require medical attention. Kidney infections can cause permanent kidney damage and kidney failure if not promptly resolved, or can spread to your bloodstream, leading to sepsis (blood poisoning). One-quarter of sepsis cases are in fact related to UTIs. In addition to the classic UTI symptoms — which include burning with urination, frequent urge to urinate, lower abdominal pain, cloudy or bloody urine — symptoms of kidney infection can include: Fever Back, side (flank) or groin pain Abdominal pain Constant thirst Signs of sepsis, which can quickly become lethal if left untreated, include the following: Fever; chills Shortness of breath; rapid breathing Increased heart rate Diarrhea Vomiting Rash Pain Disorientation; confusion If you have any of these symptoms, get immediate medical help and let them know you could potentially have sepsis. If it’s after hours, go to the emergency room. Again, be sure to inform the staff you may have sepsis, as time is of the essence when it comes to treatment. If that fails to incite a rapid response on their part, be assertive and insist on quick action, which would ideally include a combination of intravenous (IV) vitamin C, thiamine (vitamin B1) and hydrocortisone (a steroid). This treatment was developed by Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, and has become the standard of care in that facility. Giving septic patients this simple IV cocktail for two days has been shown to reduce mortality nearly fivefold, from 40 percent to 8.5 percent. For more information, please see “Vitamin C — A Game Changer in Treatment of Deadly Sepsis.”

#VitalityPath

0 notes