Ah well, disappointing, but no surprise really. Certainly not the first time I’ve seen men have trouble staying focused when the topic is abusive control by men of women’s bodies.
Except when they’re evil sluts trying to deprive the world of their sacred foetus
I need that as a tshirt, coffee mug, and tattoo.
For shame, sir. How little you understand women. They are not “evil sluts”. (If they were, there would have to be some form of punishment.) They’re just flighty and a little impulsive. That’s why we have a carefully crafted body of law to protect them from their own feckless choices until they are safely grounded in motherhood.
Oh, sweet Dionysus - that’s a multi-purpose image, given that it poetically represents the Republican party in a nutshell.
So at what point will restrictions get to the point where they are no longer constitutional?
If it’s legal, then keep it legal and stop with the convoluted schemes.
Spoken like someone who has never had a mammogram.
Having said that, one time I had the worst one, and I told the technician that. It really was more painful than ever before. She said she could back off a smidge, but not much, and I assured her that I understood she needed to press as hard as possible for a good reason, so just go ahead and get it over with.
That was the mammogram that diagnosed my breast cancer, which was already at Stage III.
I suspect that if men had to go through a similar painful squeezing to determine prostate and/or testicular cancer, researchers would have come up with a less-painful route by now. But hey, women be complaining for no good reason, since supposedly other activities put more force on the same area (no, they don’t…not even close).
Yes, and I misstated the frequency of these exams. If your results come back questionable, you have to submit to yet another exam. Then, they still want you to be rechecked in six months even after a negative biopsy. I don’t know what the schedule is like for someone who is actually fighting breast cancer.
The person who designs a better device with more comfortable screening should win the Nobel Prize, as far I’m concerned.
It always baffles me how a mammogram machine doesn’t seem to be built to actually fit women. Why do we have to contort ourselves into weird positions?! It always seems like the equipment’s been re-purposed from something else.
And I mean, it probably has been adapted from some other type of imaging machine. Because they weren’t designed by women.
Because some authors don’t want to carefully weigh every word in a humorless way?
Lots of research going on. From mentioned elastography (I didn’t know about it yet, could it be used for e.g. imaging of defects in rubber mouldings?) to various methods based on blood analysis.
That’s entirely possible.
Also, blame the medical industry and the government regulators, colluding together to exclude newcomers and slowing down development. Hate where it belongs, hate the bureaucrats.
…and the bureaucrats that try to regulate even importing the devices. We got shipped just a lousy solder paste dispenser with wrong paperwork and the customs bitch was insisting it is a medical device and was all sorts of difficult about it. (Moral: when shipping actual medical gear, take it apart, ship in pieces and declare as industrial equipment.)
Because when I write a book about breast imaging, I know using a humorous “euphemism” is going to make me sound more authoritative.
He sounds like he’s teaching a class for grades 6-8, and he’s using a wink because of his sensibilities. I don’t know any radiologist, or any other doctor, who would refer intercourse as “social interactions.”
Well, several of these laws have already ran afoul of some federal courts (I can’t think of which states off the top of my head, though)… The pro-life faction keeps pushing these sorts of restrictive laws through in the hopes of overturning Roe.
That strategy could backfire, because if some big case does make it to the supreme court, they could make all those restrictions unconstitutional.
I know the NRA had some criticism against it for not initially supporting a couple of the big gun rights cases. The but the truth was they would rather live with the current law, than fight it and have it be upheld and become harder for any new legislation or challenges later.
Sure, but that’s why they don’t want Obama to appoint someone… they are hoping for a conservative president, who will nominate a new Scalia.
I sometimes write a technical article here or there. (Todo: write more.) I like using quite some not-stiff not-entirely-formal language. That happens in some technical books too (see Norman Lieberman’s refinery ones, inter alia) and makes them livelier and easier to read. Certainly not bad to see it in medical imaging too.
And if it ruffles some tender sensible feathers, it’s preferable to being sterile and bland.
I understand that. I’m not bagging on you, but explaining why some women might find that author’s language offensive and patronizing.
Let me be clear that slipping humor into any dry, boring subject and using informal language is one thing, but if I were this guy’s editor/publisher I would have axed his use of an euphemism that could be misconstrued by his readers. For me, this author comes across as immature at worst, clueless at best. Besides the headache that comes from the serious eyeroll, I would begin picking apart everything he writes. It’s a distraction and he risks losing credibility.
The problem here is that different people have different sensibilities, and catering to all will render everything bland and boring.
Maturity is overrated. “Growing up” is kind of like dying inside.
Eyerolls are better to be saved at actual factual problems. The rest deserves usually a chuckle, at worst a shrug.
And picking stuff apart should be a normal modus operandi. We live in a world where “sheer stress” instead of “shear stress” can easily creep into even a high-end industrial book. (Viscosity measurement of gels in this case.)
Diffferent things are distractions for different people. I’d say that being dry and bland is the worst of them.
There are more surefire ways to lose credibility, and they involve factual errors, not stylistical minutiae.
Of course, the readers are free to apply different criteria - to their own peril.
I’d rather focus on the substance than the minutiae, but when the minutiae takes over the substance the author loses.
So, if I’m hearing you correctly, immature and sexist prose is okay to keep a person from dying inside?
Okay. Got it.
Different perspective: if the reader decides that the minutiae overshadow the substance, the reader loses.
Squarely beats being bland and boring.
You’re talking about half the population of the earth…