Saturday, February 27, 2021

A penalty for "having it all" that women can suffer

Damaging stress

The wife of TV star Cameron Daddo, Alison Brahe, has revealed how her sex drive collapsed when she began an early menopause triggered by her stressed adrenal glands.

The former model, now 51, says she was plagued by “crazy symptoms” and had no idea leading a frenetic life in her 30s working and being a mum would lead to hormone hell later on.

And in a raw interview via a new podcast Tory Archbold’s Powerful Stories, Brahe says some studies suggest a link between stress and the exacerbation of perimenopausal symptoms.

“My (symptoms) really hit from when I moved our whole family from America to Australia and I left behind all of my closest friends, my home and my career,” she tells the podcast.

“I was just absolutely utterly exhausted and so of course my symptoms went sky high.”

From lack of libido to hot flushes and night sweats, the symptoms of perimenopause will vary considerably, depending on the woman. Brahe says she battled health issues for two years.

“I think the loss of libido is one of the things I struggled with the most, and I know a lot of women begin to feel embarrassed and ashamed about that,” she says.

“I would sweat buckets and buckets, and just couldn’t … there was nothing I could do. I’d have to leave the dinner table and go outside, because the heat was so overpowering that I couldn’t sit there and actually just eat my food.”

Brahe admits at times she felt like she was losing her mind, so unpredictable was her body.

“When you look at the symptoms, it can be really alarming. When you look at loss of libido, you look at lack of mental focus,” she tells the podcast.

“There’s things like intolerance to cold that can come up. There’s craving salt. There’s low blood pressure. There’s mood swings. There’s hot flushes. Loss of libido is a really challenging one.”

Brahe adds: “It comes at a time when, often, we’re tired. We’re often raising teenagers, or our parents are really elderly. We’re still in the workforce. So there’s so much going on. Our husbands are still often ready to go. Yet, things are happening, again, in our bodies. We’re exhausted.”

Australasian Menopause Society president Dr Sonia Davison says professionals are investigating the link between how modern women conduct their lives and an increase in perimenopause onset rates.

“Knowledge about perimenopause for some reason has been lacking,” Davison says.

Brahe adds: “What’s really interesting is women these days, because we are doing so much more, because we’re raising families, we’re in the workforce, we’re pushing harder, pushing ourselves harder than ever before with our fitness levels, and trying to do it all, which I think is amazing.”

Entrepreneur and CEO Archbold says early perimenopause is the “secret” illness plaguing more women in their late 30s and reveals her confusion and advice on how to cope with her own diagnosis.

“I always thought menopause was for women in their 60s. It can happen at any time.”

She encourages women to put their health and wellbeing first.

“If (we) can raise awareness for people entering their 30s to lead a more balanced life, it slows down the process. Personally, I didn’t think like that in my 30s; my health was secondary — it should have been seen as my primary asset.”

Brahe says: “The more the push, the more the adrenals get shot, the more the hormones fluctuate. That’s where the belly fat begins. You start to put on weight around the belly, around the bum. The best thing I can say is go to your doctor and get a full blood work done.”

Davison says a sexual function change may occur in perimenopause as hormones fluctuate considerably, eventually leading to a low level of the main oestrogen at the time of menopause. “The changes in hormones can affect the genito-urinary tract and also the brain, hence symptoms such as lowered libido are common by menopause.”

Other symptoms may (also) include mood disturbance, sleep disturbance, lethargy, heavy or irregular periods, headaches, breast tenderness and bloating.

For women concerned about their perimenopausal symptoms, Davison advises talking to a healthcare professional. Family, friends and partners can also be of support during this time.

Archbold says: “It’s about cracking open the conversation. Embrace it — it’s going to happen and should not be a taboo topic


Do We Have the Courage of this Jailed Canadian Pastor Who Refuses to Be Silent?

Not long after Jesus was crucified and buried, two of his disciples, Peter and John, were jailed by the Jerusalem authorities for telling people that He had been resurrected from the dead after three days in the tomb, that He had talked multiple times with the disciples, and that He had ascended to Heaven.

Peter and John were preaching these things from Solomon’s Colonnade in the Temple, according to Acts 3:11, and in course of the incident, they healed a man who was lame, and claimed the healing was done “by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene — whom you crucified and whom God raised from the dead — by Him this man is standing before you healthy.”

And then they made the claim that began to change the world in the most radical ways possible: “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven give to people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The authorities who had Peter and John arrested realized that they had put themselves between a rock (pun intended) and a hard place, saying, “What should we do with these men? For an obvious sign, evident to all who live in Jerusalem, has been done through them and we cannot deny it.”

So they did what governments have been doing to dissidents ever since: They ordered them to shut up, to stop preaching Jesus resurrected, on pain of further, likely much more severe, punishments. Since Jerusalem had no First Amendment, Peter and John were faced with a profoundly serious choice.

Acts 4:19-20 tells us the choice they made: “But Peter and John answered them, ‘whether it’s right in the sight of God for us to listen to you rather than God, you decide; for we are unable to stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

So Peter and John kept right on proclaiming Jesus as the resurrected savior of all who would accept Him, defying the very authorities who had murdered Him with a cross and held the same power over His disciples who now refused to shut up.

A remarkably similar scene has just happened in our neighbor to the North. Pastor James Coates of Edmonton, Canada, Grace Life Church, was jailed earlier this month for preaching to an assembly of unmasked congregants whose numbers exceeded the 15 percent of building capacity permitted by the authorities during the Covid pandemic.

Coates was tried in secret and sentenced to prison, according to his wife, but on the condition that he can be a free man if he agrees not to again violate the Covid restrictions by preaching to his congregation assembled illegally for worship. Coates, like Peter and John, refuses to be silent. Unlike Peter and John in Acts, Coates remains in jail.

Coates is the first Canadian pastor to be so jailed. No American pastor has been jailed, yet, but many of them, especially in California, face fines that in some cases approach millions of dollars. And the prospect of going to jail is very much on their minds.

Canadians are guaranteed freedom of worship. Americans have the First Amendment to the Constitution, with its guarantee of freedom of worship and assembly.

The U.S. Supreme Court, unlike those in Canada, is steadily striking down and limiting the actions of presumptuous officials threatening church congregations and their pastors with fines and imprisonment for their obedience to God’s command at Hebrews 10:25 “to not neglect the assembling together [for worship].”

But why are these battles having to be fought in the first place if governments are bound by their chartering documents to respect freedom of assembly and worship?

Lawyer James Kitchen of Canada’s Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms suggests that a major part of the answer to that question is the fact we let officials trample on our rights:

“More people need to stop self-censoring. They’re scared to speak up. They’re scared of getting in trouble at work, they’re scared of losing their friends, they’re scared of what people are going to say, they’re scared of dirty looks, this is what I hear, they’re scared of other people.

“And unfortunately, the more influence people have, the more they’re scared to use it, to say ‘You know, this is wrong. Count me in, I disagree with this. This has to stop.’ People with their words and with peaceful actions need to say, stop, enough is enough.”

“Democracy is governing by consent. This is the whole underlying philosophical purpose of elections, You choose who governs you. … It is time for people to say, ‘I am removing my consent to be policed and governed this way,’” said Kitchen.

That advice holds true on both sides of the U.S./Canadian border, and it is a challenge to each and every one of us.


Trans-‘inclusive’ language is erasing women’s biology


In the 1979 Monty Python classic Life of Brian, four people sit on the steps of a Roman amphitheatre, speaking in hushed tones.

“Any anti-imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power base,” one asserts. They then proceed to debate a man’s inalienable right to have a baby.

Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.

Reg: What!?

Stan: It’s my right as a man.

Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

Stan: I want to have babies.

Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?!

Stan: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

Reg: But you can’t have babies.

Stan: Don’t you oppress me.

Forty-two years later and Monty Python’s absurdist vision has materialised. Not only do (trans) men have the right to have babies but their right to not be offended in the maternity ward now outweighs a woman’s right to be described as a mother.

The push to be more inclusive of trans men within maternity care has prompted an increasing number of hospitals, medical organisations and bureaucracies to alter standard language around pregnancy so that it is gender neutral and “inclusive”.

In practice, this means midwives at two National Health Service hospitals in Britain — Brighton and Sussex — have been instructed to refer to breastfeeding mothers as “chest-feeders” and to use the term “human milk” in place of breast milk.

A debate erupted in the House of Lords recently as a maternity leave bill brought before Westminster referred to “pregnant persons” instead of pregnant women. Peers across the political spectrum drew attention to the fact women’s experiences — and biology itself — was being erased by such language.

It’s not just pregnancy-related terminology that is being altered but also sex education materials. An LGBTQIA Safer Sex Guide published on the US website Healthline refers to “front holes”.

On the same website, a guide to foreplay with women describes the female of the human species — more than 50 per cent of the population — as “vulva owners”.

Most worryingly is the fact these ugly and dehumanising contortions of the English language are creeping into the mainstream medical profession. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the leading US health bureaucracy, uses the term “pregnant persons” instead of pregnant women. As more and more organisations do the same, it will become harder for those who wish to resist the long march to a transgendered utopia. As JK Rowling recently found out, pushing back against trans activists can lead to vicious backlash.

But pushback is required. Articles in leading medical journals such as the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology have advocated for the erasure of women in language on pregnancy care. The New England Journal of Medicine recently published an article that argued that sex should not be recorded at birth, as it was offensive to intersex people and those who may later grow up to be trans. As my colleague, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright, has argued in Quillette, these journals are betraying their scientific mission in an effort to conform to fashionable cultural trends.

Similarly, those who instruct midwives to refer to new mothers as “chest-feeders” are betraying their duty of care to the many women who require empathetic support at a critical and life-changing time in their lives.

While we can all agree that transgender individuals who become pregnant and give birth should be treated with respectful and compassionate healthcare, women also have a right to be treated with dignity. Transgender rights should not outweigh the rights of half the population, and using reproductive anatomy to describe women should be left to the realm of dystopian fiction, not standard midwifery practice.

Speaking in the House of Lords, peers from across the political spectrum denounced bureaucrats who sought to normalise these new terms: “Our laws and words must never treat people as non-human things,” said Baroness Claire Fox. “I am not a uterus holder, nor a person with a vagina nor a chest-feeder. These are linguistic abominations.”

While these peers should be celebrated for standing up for common sense, it also speaks to the oppressive moment we live in that only those with the most secure privileges are able to speak freely without fear of repercussion. We need more individuals to stand up and speak fearlessly before we all end up living inside a Monty Python sketch.


Fact-Checking the Leftmedia 'Fact-Checkers'

USA Today has not corrected the factual errors in its own fact check.

The Patriot Post is often the target of unfounded social media “fact-checks” and “missing context” claims. In every case, we are deemed “guilty until proven innocent,” and it’s almost impossible to get redress from any of the social media outlets. There is another “missing context” claim to tell you about, but first…

Let me tell you about how the so-called “fact-checkers” have been checking on the Biden/Harris regime. You may have heard that the mass media and Big Tech First Amendment suppressors have a slight leftist bias, so brace yourself.

This week, Joe Biden repeated a litany of ludicrous ChiCom Virus pandemic lies in a CNN “town hall” event. Among them he declared, “We didn’t have [the vaccine] when we came into office.” Now, for us mere mortals, this would have resulted in a costly strike, but in Biden’s case, WaPo’s head fact-checker faker, Glenn Kessler, ran interference for him. He claimed the comment was a “verbal stumble, a typical Biden gaffe,” adding, “People screw up on live television. Biden with his stutter especially does so.”

Fact check WaPo: Biden has already said he does not have a “stutter.”

Apparently it was the same “gaffe” script of lies that Kamala Harris used a few days earlier when she repeated, “There was no national strategy or plan for vaccinations.” And she added this stutter: “In many ways, we’re starting from scratch on something that’s been raging for almost an entire year.”

Before the White House arbiters of truth could intervene on Harris’s behalf, some lowly fact-checkers had rated her comments what they were: False. Even the left-leaning crew at PolitiFact declared it was wrong. But mysteriously, the fact-checks were deleted almost as quickly as they were posted.

Must be nice!

Again, these are not just factual errors; these are outright lies. More to the point, hearing Harris repeat the lie again, former Trump administration economic adviser Larry Kudlow was caught on a hot mic with this assessment: “Bulls—t! Bulls—t! Bulls—t!”

Of course, the Trump administration left the Biden administration a vaccine already in distribution and a robust plan to continue production and distribution. Anthony Fauci, the COVID Godfather, had already refuted the Biden/Harris assertions the day after the inauguration, insisting, “We certainly are not starting from scratch.” In fact, this week the daily average for vaccine doses administered has now ramped up to 1.7 million per day. That is not a “Biden/Harris” success story.

So, what was the latest hit against our Patriot Post social media pages?

As you may know, last June, after Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer staged a theatrical kneeling for George Floyd in the Capitol rotunda — which added accelerant to their constituents’ burn, loot, and murder “summer of rage” — I started posting tributes to police officers murdered in the line of duty and asking Pelosi and Schumer why they have not taken a knee for them. Of course, George Floyd was just a political prop for Pelosi and Schumer.

Last week, we created a meme image asking that question about Officer Brian Sicknick, but removed it soon after posting to Facebook because, while Pelosi and Schumer did not take a knee for him, I believe they disgracefully used his Capitol rotunda funeral as political fodder, timed as it was to coincide with their Trump impeachment inquisition.

However, on 09 February, after removing the image, USA Today’s fact-checker found it on a personal social media page and declared the image was, you guessed it, “missing context.” Under the title, “Democratic leaders honored officer Brian Sicknick,” she asserted that Pelosi and Schumer did honor him. Our social media director, Andrew Culper, recently wrote that the ubiquitous “missing context” label is now the Big Tech censorship catch-all to hit conservative social media pages.

Notably, USA Today’s “missing context” claim asserted up top, “[Officer Sicknick] was struck in the head by a fire extinguisher during the riots and died from his injuries the following day.” The writer then asserts, “Misinformation surrounding the Capitol riot has been rampant on social media.”

Indeed it has.

Responding to the “fact-checker,” we asked for her facts: “A week before you posted your assertion about [Officer Sicknick’s] death as fact, CNN reported in their article, ‘Investigators struggle to build murder case in death of US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick,’ that despite the oft-repeated claim about his injuries, ‘investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.’” Even The New York Times quietly corrected its 08 January post making the “fire extinguisher” assertion — but not until after the Demos’ closing impeachment arguments — which relied, in part, on the Times’s false narrative. (I am sure the timing of the Times’s correction was just coincidental…)

We asked the “fact-checker” to back up her facts. No response.

We also asked the fact-checker, for the sake of transparency, to disclose whom she supported for president in 2016 and 2020. No response.

Finally, we inquired about a note at the bottom of her article: “Our fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.” We asked, “By way of full disclosure, please advise how much funding or other support you and your organization receive from Facebook.” No response.

As of this writing, the factual errors in the USA Today “fact-check” have not been corrected.




No comments: