Check out easy-peasy. Ive used plain ol redux, mobx, and xstate, but easy-peasy is the fricken best. It's basically a redux wrapper that combines redux, thunks, reselect, redux logger, immer, and more into a super intuitive interface. The typescript support is super good and interacting with the API feels very modern and hook-driven.
But Recoil is slightly different, designed to be “component first” essentially. Not global. It’s how my own personal mobx based library works. But this one likely has concurrent mode baked in.
You're never going to please everyone. I've seen HNers complain about the opposite, that they have a large monitor for a reason and the web designer has wronged them by adding margins.
Anyways, I think we're all big boys and girls who can figure out how to use reader mode or resize a window in 2020. That's the whole beauty of the web browser.
body {
max-width: 65ch;
line-height: 1.3;
/* center the body in the viewport, and then add padding to make up for the default margin we overwrote */
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
padding-left: 0.5em;
padding-right: 0.5em;
}
I’ve had that style on for so long I forgot about this site’s terrible defaults.
Not sure what type of sites you're building on the web, but building nontrivial feature-rich web applications does not scale well with vanilla JS. Frameworks like React and Angular give you the power to manage state, respond to state updates with performant and predictable UI rerendering, and share components and logic in an opinionated way that buys engineering teams consistency and speed of development. Maybe the 10% of companies that aren't deterred by this opinion simply don't have websites that necessitate a "web application," but having an applicant say this would personally have me looking the other way 100% of the time.
> Maybe the 10% of companies that aren't deterred by this opinion simply don't have websites that necessitate a "web application,"
The further your features get from a static html page the less JS frameworks helps. For example you can pretty easily write super mario in vanilla JS using normal html elements for rendering, doing that in JS frameworks would not be very fun at all. However if all you want to do is display data from servers or let the user fill in forms then JS frameworks are pretty good.
Super mario is orders of magnitude simpler than most web applications. Almost the entire state is encoded in the current frame and there are only three instructions.
Change it to mario maker where you can create and upload levels and look at and play others levels directly in the browser and it is still easier to implement in vanilla JS than for example react. Honestly if these things are not enough to constitute a complex web app then I don't see how the demand for people able to write complex web apps can be that large, since almost nothing I use are complex in that case.
In turn, though, if your features are sufficiently close to being possible with a static HTML page, I fail to see the point of introducing a framework into that mix when you could just use static HTML (with maybe a sprinkling of JS when it's absolutely necessary, e.g. input validation more complex than what HTML offers).
> Not sure what type of sites you're building on the web, but building nontrivial feature-rich web applications does not scale well with vanilla JS. Frameworks like React and Angular give you the power to manage state,
I disagree. It's extraordinarily trivial. Managing state is as simple as changing the value in a settings object as the user interacts with a control on the page and then saving that object so that when the page is reloaded there is known restore point by which all controls are repopulated and in the condition from which they were left. In my current personal project I am synchronously sending the state object to a Node instance that writes it to a file so that state is restored cross-browser and cross-computer.
These are beginner things. The only reason why many developers even pretend they are vaguely more challenging than copy/paste is because they have never written this logic themselves.
I am tired of being stuck, at work, in perpetual beginner land with developers who are intimidated to write 3 lines of code without 3mb of framework to tell them how its done. It isn't because these other developers lack the intelligence or capabilities to write original code. It is because the social state of development encourages them not. Here are some reasons why:
Many developers college educated UI developers I have worked with prefer to toggle configurations instead of writing original logic, even trivial logic. This is what they were taught in school and this how they were prepared for the real world. This is bad design. Playing around with configurations wastes people time. A better approach is to simply supply a working default state for any conceivable configuration and a point of automation to supplying changes to options.
As I have mentioned several times already in just this comment most UI developers I have worked with are deathly afraid of writing original code. This isn't because they are incompetent or incapable. It is primarily due to social reinforcement where any locally crafted software is inherently untrusted compared to equivalent code written by a stranger from some untested external package. I have experience this myself when a colleague adamantly told me to use some software in preference to the current office approach from outside the company not realizing I wrote a good porting of the software he was recommending. This social state is so prolific it even has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invented_here
Developers also go way out of their way to reinforce much of this irrationality by offering simple cliches in their defense. The most common are:
* Writing a web application is too hard to scale without some framework to do it for me
* Reinventing the wheel
* The DOM is too slow (implying that somehow a framework makes it faster)
There is no evidence behind any of those points, but there is plenty of evidence and examples to the contrary. Its irrational nonsense that people use to reinforce bad ideas shared by their peers. I am no longer interested in working along side that lack of evidence-based critical reasoning and fear of originality.
If this means dismissing many potential employment opportunities then so be it. I would rather find a rare better fit than desperately settling for something so unambitious.
After a few cocktails, once or twice, I've wondered with friends whether some "fuzzy" information rate constant might be a reference by which our brain understands the passage of time. In other words: if there is a fundamental processing rate of x/time, then theoretically, wouldn't our brains subconsciously use that for all kinds of neat reasons?
And the rate wouldn't have to be the exact same value for each individual, so long as the brain can attune its specific value to other reference points to time in nature.
It's sad to see men regressing at the idea of diversity in tech. It can't just be a boys club. The value in employment diversity is that we give people of all backgrounds a fair shot at opportunities. IMO it's actually a very complex issue strategically leveling the playing field.
At Google, something like only 1 in 5 tech workers are female, and their diversity practices are fairly extreme compared to the norm. It's logically more difficult to find qualified female coders because there are less of them applying for positions. REQUIRING a certain benchmark of females to be hired each month or year, when HR is picking from a much smaller candidate pool, is going to result in hiring potentially less qualified individuals. That could actually cause a greater gender bias if women are being hired to hit a metric but potentially performing at a lower quality than their male counterparts. I say "potentially" because obviously there are a ton of great female coders, but there are a lot of shoddy ones too. Same with men.
As an example:
You have ten applicants for one position. 2 are female, 8 are male. Just for fun, lets say "33% of all programmers, male and female, produce good code and have a qualifying resume". The chances that you will have a qualified male candidate are going to be greater based on those two facts alone. If you need to hit a 50% men/50% women hiring metric, you're taking a gamble on the work quality of women hired.
~BUT~: WE HAVE TO OFFER STRONGER INCENTIVES FOR WOMEN IN TECH IN ORDER FOR THE PLAYING FIELD TO BE LEVELED. Future female coders aren't going to feel inspired or motivated to enter a workforce that's dominated by men. The solution sometimes looks faulty when viewed on a case-by-case basis, but we need to offer an olive branch in the form of better job placement opportunities until women are inspired to pursue tech and have equal rights and job prospects.
Slowly but surely we will realize that we are hitting a wall, and that no matter how far we push, or how much we incentivize, things will not change. The whole gender equality movement (and I do want to isolate this from all other identity movements) will eventually have to face the reality of women's choice, and what they choose perhaps will not be a satisfactory answer/direction the proponents of this ideology wish to see.
Norwegian countries are by far more "advanced" in their implementation and encouragement of "gender equality" at the work place, but they've eventually have had to come to terms with certain facts that betrays the whole "gender equality" narrative. You can't force women to choose. Not to mention why isn't there a push for more women working trade jobs like construction, plumbing, underwater wielding, etc. that in itself betrays the entire "gender equality" narrative.
There's a Norwegian documentary exploring this subject called "The Gender Equality Paradox" https://vimeo.com/19707588. It's a good documentary and suggest people view it.
"Not to mention why isn't there a push for more women working trade jobs like construction, plumbing, underwater wielding, etc. that in itself betrays the entire "gender equality" narrative."
This same comment is made every single time there's a discussion of gender equality in tech, and when examined betrays the entire "anti gender equality" narrative.
People are in fact pushing for women in every single one of the fields you mentioned:
The next point that's brought up is "well then why aren't people pushing for more men in female dominated industries." To which the answer is, they are, and have been for a long time: http://www.aamn.org/about-us/scholarships
It seems fishy to me when people are willing to speak out against diversity in tech without bothering to research any part of their argument.
I don't think the point is that there aren't any people advocating for those industries, it's that there are far fewer people advocating for gender equality in those industries. It's extremely easy to find a couple of people/organizations who advocate for those industries, but overall far less than tech and other desirable jobs.
That wasn't even the point of my whole argument. All I'm saying is that perhaps women don't want those jobs in the first place. Then what will you do? I mean that is the whole assumption of this argument right? That women want these jobs, but are unable to participate in them because of discrimination. What if that assumption is wrong?
You can push for diversity all you want, but what if that's just not how people behave? Again watch the documentary I think Norwegian society is a far better a case study for Gender issues than anywhere else on the planet.
That clearly is the assumption of the argument. That women don't have enough opportunities and thus are underrepresented in the work force. Whether that opportunity refers to discrimination, encouragement, etc. is irrelevant to what I'm saying. What if women are underrepresented because they simply don't want the jobs?
I understood your argument, it's just a bad argument. You presented no evidence to support your claim so I'm not sure what you want me to refute. Yes, perhaps the current employment representation perfectly reflects what jobs women want. And perhaps men just really like killing themselves. Resolving gender issues sure is easy when we just assume hypotheticals are true.
I think you are missing the point of the argument for encouraging diversity. Discrimination is one aspect yes, but there's a lot to be said for encouraging young women to explore these fields just by having a visible number of women in those roles.
To me it would be wildly inconceivable for predisposition to certain jobs to be an inherent biological trait rather than something shaped by society.
"To me it would be wildly inconceivable for predisposition to certain jobs to be an inherent biological trait rather than something shaped by society."
Doesn't really matter what would inconceivable to you. What matters if that's the reality of the situation. Watch the documentary it addresses it.
It really doesn't. I'm not arguing there aren't inherent differences in the sexes, I'm asking you why you think the current representation of gender in the workforce is correct. As far as I'm aware there's no evidence to suggest the current state of representation is the most natural. I skimmed through the video you linked and saw no convincing evidence, but if there's something I missed please link me to it.
"I'm not arguing there aren't inherent differences in the sexes, I'm asking you why you think the current representation of gender in the workforce is correct."
No. I'm saying we don't know whether the current representation is the "most natural", but what if it is?
Furthermore if you had looked through the video you would have realized that the entire basis of the documentary is an attempt to answer why labor force participation often becomes gender segregated. You say that it's because of lack of "encouragement", but maybe there's something else at play.
The culture surrounding the job has enormous impact on who signs up. It's not inherent that tech jobs have to be like they are, but finding a better path could take a long long time. It's IMO scum and villainy willing to chalk it up to gender imbalance while not considering that it might take large scale sociological change, perhaps over decades of time, to gradually make our system better. Trying to be gender fair is only a small part of building healthy, good workspaces- there's many other systematic evils that need rooting out, and I'm not sure why that's not apparent & considered before making these kinds of gross discarding remarks.
I brought it up before, I will bring it up now - my sister was going to go into CS until her career adviser(also a woman) told her she's made a great choice since someone will have to hire her because she is a woman. She changed her course choices the next day. I'm all 100% for giving everyone an equal chance. I am not for hiring because someone is <insert underrepresented group here>.
"Hiring because someone is <insert underrepresented group here>" isn't the goal, IMO, and I think it sounds like your sister's career advisor did her a disservice by describing it that way. I also don't think her career advisor's POV is true, FWIW.
As a woman in STEM, I don't want someone to hire me just because I'm a woman. I want someone to 1) think I'm awesome at what I do, and 2) by the way I happen to be a woman. But I also think it's true that if 2) is a fact about you, it's harder for you to prove 1) than it would be otherwise, and that's not right. My belief is that the reason for encouraging diversity initiatives are that there are lots of talented women (and other minority groups) out there who are being overlooked but deserve to get noticed and hired, and the goal is always to surface talented people to hire, women or otherwise.
Yes but is the issue here solved by diversity hiring i.e. doing whatever it takes to hire more women or is the issue here solved by redefining how the workplace operates and making it something that enables women to succeed and enjoy the work without being highly aggressive? Actually it isn't just about women in software development, men should be included too. Plenty of men in software development are atypical compared to other men.
I'm a man in STEM - weird to put it that way - but I have a lot of issues in dealing with hyper aggressive people in the workplace. Unfortunately I've found that sometimes the only way to be heard in the workplace is to be aggressive and repeat myself over and over again.
Being aggressive in the workplace has resulted in me, against a company full of people who don't appreciate methodical software development, introducing less bugs, having more time to work with customer issues, and spending more time on testing and maintenance. Admittedly, it's very emotionally and mentally fatiguing.
As I write this I'm thinking about nurses and how insanely aggressive you have to be in a hospital, which is a women dominated field. I suppose that the difference is that the work is incredibly high-impact whereas it's easy in software development to feel that your work is for nothing because often it is.
I don't know what the solution is, or if the question I'm asking is the right question, but I'm fairly certain that the current practice of diversity hiring doesn't help the issue but instead hurts it more. Same thing with this unconscious bias training.
Now, I do strongly believe that encouraging women to consider STEM in school is a very good idea and that it opens a lot of doors that otherwise may of not been open. I believe this, in the long-term, is a giant step in the right direction because of cultural pressures and norms for people at a very young age.
1) "Now, I do strongly believe that encouraging women to consider STEM in school is a very good idea and that it opens a lot of doors that otherwise may of not been open. I believe this, in the long-term, is a giant step in the right direction because of cultural pressures and norms for people at a very young age."
100% agree! I was lucky enough to be blissfully oblivious at an early age, but as I grew older it became very clear to me from middle school onwards that I was considered "unusual" as a girl so interested in STEM, and people had lowered expectations for me, even from well-intentioned people I loved and respected. Luckily I'm pretty boneheaded and I like to prove people wrong, but it's unfair to expect and require that of women to stick with STEM. I agree it's a real shame, and there's just no reason to discourage people early on.
2) The problem is that even the perception of aggression in and of itself includes some gender bias issues. Multiple studies have confirmed that within the workplace, women are disproportionately for showing assertiveness and labeled "aggressive", versus men, when the evaluator is male. However, when the evaluator is female there is no such bias.
So if the goal really is to achieve a workplace where aggressiveness is no longer perpetuating gender inequality in the workplace, that would actually be even more support for encouraging more women to join the team. If you were surprised by this statistic, as many people (both men and women) are, I think that's an example of why unconscious bias training is helpful, because that helps all of us resist these tendencies we are unaware that we have.
3) Aggression, while one part of the problem, is far from the only piece, unfortunately. It's fine and dandy to tell me "this isn't an aggressive workplace," but there's actually a lot more needed. Do you have a thoughtful maternity (and paternity, to show that you understand that women alone aren't responsible for childcare) leave policy? Are women not disproportionately interrupted in meetings, or penalized for speaking up (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0001839212439994)? Will I be given fair professional feedback and evaluations (https://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in..., https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-gender-bias-corrupts-performance...)? Can I rest assured that your workplace isn't a bro enclave where the male manager who interviewed me secretly emails the company to tell them that he thinks I'm attractive and pressures me for personal contact information, when I want to be taken seriously as a professional and evaluated on my actual skills (yes this really happened)? Can I reliably network with my colleagues in and out of the office without worrying whether they will turn into "surprise" dates that have 0% to do with the professional intent I had, forcing me to extricate myself from wasted time and energy again and again? I used to think it was just me, but literally every single one of my female friends in Bay Area tech has some story along these lines.
It's true that these are all things where sure, I could cross my fingers and trust that the existing, mostly male-run institutions are enlightened enough to recognize the pervasiveness of these issues, and fix them, and solve everything for the future. But truth be told, I think they'll get fixed a lot faster when there are more women in the workplace and in leadership who have personally experienced, and think about, these issues, for them to get fixed anytime soon. I certainly did not realize how pervasive these issues were before beginning my own career in tech--it had to happen to me before I believed it, sadly. Today I'm lucky to be working at a company that cares deeply about these issues and creates an environment that I feel proud to recruit other women into, vs. one where I feel I can't do so in good conscience.
Again, though, I do completely disavow the notion that hiring more women should mean lowering the bar. I am in total agreement that that would be a terrible idea that does no good to anyone, and in fact that's just an insulting idea to women anyway. I just simply believe that there is a lot more talent out there than gets into the door / feels welcome to stay in the industry, and that there are concrete things we can do about that.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply! Would be happy to chat more about any of the perspectives I'm sharing here.
(FWIW, I know this is tangential to the point of your argument but, I also don't think it's true that hospitals are women-dominated. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that women hold 75% of healthcare jobs; however, only 25% of hospital CEOs are women and only 21% of execs and board members are women, so it might be more accurate to say, women only dominate the least influential positions, where they would have the least say in policy and culture-norm setting. And even among doctors, nurses, and the other job positions you might be thinking of, there's a significant gender wage gap and men receive appreciably higher salaries in almost every single one. For these reasons I would not call it a woman-dominated field. http://fortune.com/2017/03/08/international-womens-day-healt...)
I'm very happy that you made a thoughtful reply, I was getting into a fairly long discussion with a coworker about James Damore and how women fit into a modern tech workplace. I think the most disappointing thing about that whole ordeal was that a lot of potential discussion was instantly shutdown by a few people. Anyways that is me sidetracking.
I'll have to read the first two links later - super busy right now - but I have heard before (and seen a few times) that assertiveness is often termed as aggressiveness in women which is horribly unfortunate. I also do think that I really simplified the issue a lot in my previous post, partly because I don't have all of these experiences or talk with much people who do (at least in tech). I can see how having more women speak about their experiences openly can help other people understand although it's such a hard issue because what if they get identified at their workplace..
Ugh surprise dates sound like the absolute worst. I know quite a few women who have stories about this in and out of tech. I strongly agree with you that having more women in the workplace and as leaders will combat a lot of these issues. I also agree that we don't need to lower the bar to do this. It has been my own personal experience that social norms and expectations from peers can really destroy people who otherwise would be at the top of their field.
I should've been more specific and was strictly referring to nurses. The only reason I brought it up is because during school I met some nurses and heard some horror stories about men becoming nurses. Particularly in social situations men aren't 'respected' if they are a nurse which is a silly norm since they are working on the floor in a high impact job saving people's lives. I do recognize that there is another issue with women not holding influential positions where they can have a large affect on culture.
No one is 'regressing' at the idea of diversity in tech. Framing it that way is a huge part of the problem and phenomenally disingenuous and simplistic.
The divide is really whether you want force extra diversity at the expense of a meritocracy or if you want a meritocracy. With all the 'more women' vs. 'boys club' nonsense, a person not thinking critically could forget that some people want to work with the best people so they can do the best work and all the labels in between don't mean shit. If that ends up being more women or any other group that is a minority in tech it makes a tiny difference compared to being able to really achieve something meaningful.
There's an important issue here that's been overlooked. A few sociopath VP's act like sociopaths-- exactly what you hired them to do-- and all men are labeled as sexist, rapists, etc.
The assumption itself is highly discriminatory and completely contradicts the stated goal.
Why do you believe that diversity and meritocracy are mutually exclusive? There are lots of ways companies can and do try to encourage more diversity in their workforce, and few of those approaches involve hiring unqualified people just to fill a quota. Arguments that diversity MUST come at the expense of meritocracy come across as a more subtle way to argue that the status quo represents the natural order of things. Or in other words, the argument is that there are more men than women in tech because men are better suited to it, not because of any non-skill based issues causing a gender imbalance. Because if there were other issues, surely addressing them could improve diversity without making things less meritocratic.
It's not possible to be a "meritocracy" based simply on hiring "the best" without accounting for all the institutional problems when it comes to sexism and sex discrimination that give men the ability to more easily be "the best" than women.
Being able to "ignore" labels is a perfect example of the kind of privilege men have access to in our society. And the fact that these comments from from a username that is reference to a penis / sexual act is just another layer to tech's issues creating a tolerant space for meritocracy to thrive.
By definition, you can't have a meritocracy without having diversity. In a meritocracy, someone needs to determine the "merit", or at least define the rules which will determine it. And as long as that someone is human, the merit will be affected by their thoughts, emotions, beliefs and understanding of the world, which are in turn determined (or at the very least affected) by the world around them.
You do not need diversity to have a meritocracy in 100m sprint. Diversity may help to get closer to meritocracy in other fields, but in some fields the criteria are so difficult to determine that even with diversity it may be virtually impossible within a single company. The good news is that the market corrects this: the industry misjudging opens an opportunity for other companies to hire more effectively by judging correctly. If you believe that the industry is undervaluing group X, then you can hire more effectively by hiring group X.
> You do not need diversity to have a meritocracy in 100m sprint.
I'm not sure that Jesse Owens would agree with you.
The only reason why it seems that we don't is because there are rules which determine the winner, and those rules reflect the worldview of those who have set them. Even today the athletic sprint is not full "meritocracy", as women compete separate from men.
One more note: I've put the word meritocracy in quotes because 100m sprint has nothing to do with meritocracy. That term means that the most capable ones rule, while in athletics those with best results certainly don't rule, even if they reap other rewards.
No meritocracy exists in tech at any level and claims to the contrary so strangely come predicated on a level of social and cultural privilege that, for some shocking reason, those without that very seriously considered and measured (stop laughing) merit so often seem to lack.
It exists... it's just rare. I've seen it work first hand in most of my career at trading firms of all sizes.
Though, after leaving the field from extreme burnout (definitely something to be said there), I haven't seen anything that even remotely matches the meritocratic systems in the finance world. It's kinda bittersweet.
I'm actually saying basically same thing in the middle part of my response. But meritocracies sometimes need to take a hard look in the mirror and admit cognitive biases and tweak the dials accordingly.
Your post actually argued we should introduce cognitive biases, and hire unequally.
Framing doing that as supporting gender equality is the Orwellian doublespeak that people are starting to object to -- you can support diversity without supporting hiring on the basis of race, gender, etc.
You need to get over this infantile faith that tech is a meritocracy. It’s not, and it never has been. That’s a comforting and self-serving myth we keep telling ourselves.
I'm curious. Which professional sector is a meritocracy? From what I've seen, and I may not have seen enough, nothing is a true meritocracy, or really even approaches it.
P.S.
I'm not trying to be snarky. I really do want some examples (outside of certain sports, I guess) of actual meritocracies. I can't think of one =[
I would argue pure meritocracies become bureaucracies. No need to know the person, just put in their merits. Everyone knows their pay grade and everyone knows what it takes to get to the next level. However, how effective are bureaucracies, well just look at government.
Women in the United States do not have a universal right to health care. Even ignoring affordability, many localities have made it effectively impossible to obtain health care services that are related to reproductive health care.
If these services were a right (even at the level of "you have a right to purchase these if you can afford them") that practice would be illegal and perhaps even unconstitutional.
And this does more than affect women seeking abortions. Many women with hormonal regulation issues cannot get the care and medication they need because access to medicines which are also birth control is not a right. Largely because of religious objections.
Meanwhile men have an unchallenged right to vasectomies. Feel free to correct me, but it appears to be legal and obtainable as a procedure in every state.
We could also point to evidence that there is a practical lack of rights to fair trials in sexual assault cases, but I'll leave that to someone else.
> Men don't even have birth control, although that is generally no fault of anyone
... What?
> female sterilizations aren't banned anywhere in the US either.
They are as a matter of practice unobtainable in many states that have tried to engage in moral panic over abortion, since many of the same clinics that provide such services are viewed as abortion providers.
> About sexual assault cases and lack of rights pertaining to due process, I would suggest that the evidence points to the opposite:
Thanks for providing a link to a broad survey of data and not a cherry picked article.
> > Men don't even have birth control, although that is generally no fault of anyone
... What?
They don't have the option of birth control, what's confusing about that?
> They are as a matter of practice unobtainable in many states that have tried to engage in moral panic over abortion, since many of the same clinics that provide such services are viewed as abortion providers.
As far as I understand such clinics are cut off from federal/state funding, in line with the Hyde amendment, and in only three states, right? I'm not sure how this qualifies as systematic oppression of women.
> oh. so by framing access to birth control/abortion as "health care", it's now a "health care" issue. that's a interesting way of grabbing attention.
You could read the paragraph where I point out those drugs have other uses. Women with endomitriosis or PCOS need them and can't get them in many states, living in pain and increased mortality because of moral panic over health care.
But even ignoring that, managing when to have children IS a health issue for many women and for their unborn. For example, many women over 40 take birth control because they're concerned about increased rates of birth defects for children with mother's over 40.
Your attempt to frame a phenomenally complicated biological process as anything but a health issue is your politically informed opinion.
How does this have anything to do with the workplace? While I am with on women getting more reproductive attention, I just don't see how it's related. Women have all the rights in regards to getting a job, and advancing their careers.
Also I don't think hysterectomies/"getting the tubes tied" are illegal or even controversial, which would be a far more similar comparison to vasectomies.
Are you referring to abortions solely, or also contraceptives, hysterectomies and tubal libations et al? I've heard that it can be difficult to get oral contraceptives, but I don't know what barriers are in the way.
Honest question; I am Canadian and am not wholly aware of the state of medical affairs south of the fourty-nine.
Several states make reproductive health clinics impossible to run via various methods. Legislation is being pushed in Texas to directly outlaw Planned Parenthood even though abortions are a tiny, tiny fraction of their provided procedures over a yearly basis.
Which is also unavailable in many places because the clinics that provide those services are associated with abortion.
But also, this is a "well actually" that attempts to dodge the substance of my post to chip away at it. Ostensibly, these cheaper tactics are frowned upon here and generally considered beneath the desired level of the discourse here.
> But also, this is a "well actually" that attempts to dodge the substance of my post to chip away at it.
I'm not sure it is. Your assertion was a central tenet of your argument. Abortion, although I totally agree with it being allowed, is admittedly a messy issue, and I can see why it's polarizing. Trying to frame that as an example for why women supposedly don't have equal rights is IMHO disingenuous.
To be completely honest, what you just wrote is far more disruptive to the conversation than what I wrote.
The analogy you made was a pretty central part of your post, and it's really disingenuous to compare abortions to vasectomies. They are utterly different procedures. There simply is no analogy to an abortion procedure for men.
Women have different health care requirements that in some cases have hormonal treatment and those are both under-subsidized and over-stigmatized because religious people of all stripes think it's okay to override women's rights for the sake of their religion.
Tubal ligation doesn't solve a thing for PCOS and Endomitriosis sufferers. It doesn't solve anything for people with thyroid issues. But these women get substandard or no treatment in the efforts to restrict access to birth control.
But hey, the far less reliable tubal ligation is covered and that makes it fine, because I mentioned casually that men's reproductive care is almost never on the table.
Folks were terribly activist about body autonomy when it was medical marijuana on the table. But you mention "oh also this is birth control" and suddenly questions about why governments should be subsidizing medical care for poor people crop up like this isn't a well studied and decades old public health issue. Children of parents with access to pre-natal care cost less to society and offer more than those without, and this is reflected in the health outcomes of planned vs unplanned children.
First of all, men's access to vasectomy procedures was a key tenet of your argument as to why it's unfair to women. Second, all of your arguments center on reproductive healthcare, such as birth control, not being government subsidized, but you ignore that men have no government subsidized reproductive health care either. This isn't to say that it should be that way, I tend to think not, but I fail to see how that's a basic right that women lack.
> First of all, men's access to vasectomy procedures was a key tenet of your argument as to why it's unfair to women.
No, it was not. I mentioned it in passing. There is no analogue in male health care.
> but you ignore that men have no government subsidized reproductive health care either.
This isn't even about subsidization. The defunding of Planned Parenthood is just insult to he injury of making affordable women's clinics essentially impossible to operate in many places in the US.
Your link only shows three states, and all of them cut off state/federal funding to institutions providing abortions. This seems like it would be in line with the Hyde amendment. Why is this now somehow an infringement of rights?
https://github.com/ctrlplusb/easy-peasy