As I stated earlier, there are some "alt" therapies out there that work, and are demonstrated to do so in standard studies.
I'm not trying to ram homeopathy down anyone's throat, but it's had the concept of individual constitutions and heritability of some conditions way before genes were discovered, while modern medicine is only belatedly coming around to the realisation there is no silver bullet that will cure everyone with syndrome X.
But due to the problem with consistently proving its efficacy in standard testing (and the la-la underpinning theory), I wouldn't want or endorse it being delivered by the NZ public health system.
What I would appreciate, though, is the "science has all the answers" crowd to refrain from patronising me about my fairly-well-informed health choices. There is room for both antibiotics and rescue remedy in my life, and I am fortunate enough to afford the latter if I choose. Whether I spend that money on a potion or, say, a private counsellor is no-one else's concern.
(Whoops, in reply to Cecelia, and Deborah got there first).
Osteopathy, for one. There is the more woo-woo branch (some of which works for me, but I'm happy to pay for). The stuff like treatment for the same kind of mobility issues and injuries that you'd send someone to a physio for have been demonstrated in multiple independent studies to also be effective when treated osteopathically. I believe the same goes for chiropractic.
Since the heath system already has the concept of funding providers for specific treatment types (you won't get funded for cancer treatment at the physio), I can't see why similar lines can't be drawn for treatments that give repeatable and verifiable results, regardless of some of the underlying theories.
On that basis, I wouldn't expect things like homeopathy or magnet therapy or iridology funded, although I've had good results personally from the first (and think the last is bunk. Yes, irony, I know.)
some might even suggest that those people might have been more heavily fucked around by neoliberalism than straight white male unionists.
It's true that finally unions like Unite are reaching out to the traditionally marginally-unionised, and the win for careworkers the other week was phenomenal. But it's taken a long time to get there compared to the traditionally-male craft unions.
As for the reverse-snobbery of sneering at the "liberal" middle-classes, I can't think of any revolution (let's go back to socialist roots) that was successful without co-opting what we think of as the middle class.
No-one needs to play oppression Olympics here. Conversely, don't throw the not-just-like-me groups under the bus when our social justice and economic fairness aims are more similar than not.
That relates to Cliff Pervocracy's Just One Ally - someone else who shows they have your back, and/or are also witnessing just how fucked-up a situation is. Can make all the difference, a lot.
And here's a digest from David Lisak himself, highlighting the tactics of abusers in terms of using psychological ploys, premeditation, alcohol use, and just as much violence as necessary to achieve their aims: http://www2.binghamton.edu/counseling/documents/RAPE_FACT_SHEET1.pdf
I hope your wife has the same rule, not to let him near the child - she doesn't take her along if she's visiting her friend. And anyone who you let look after her - if you have a babysitter, you should spell it out explicitly to them that this guy is not allowed in your apartment or near your child. I wouldn't let him touch her in any way whatsoever - no cuddles, no holding hands, no bloody nothing.
Because I can personally vouch for the fact that some people use that kind of creepy carry-on to normalise their "affectionate" behaviour to a child... and then escalate to bigger and better things when left alone with them.
And regarding the intersection of violence in general (e.g. wife beating - I can vouch for the fact it goes with child abuse too), this from one of the studies mentioned in the Yes Means Yes blog:
Lisak & Miller also answered their other question: are rapists responsible for more violence generally? Yes. The surveys covered other violent acts, such as slapping or choking an intimate partner, physically or sexually abusing a child, and sexual assaults other than attempted or completed rapes. In the realm of being partner- and child-beating monsters, the repeat rapists really stood out. These 76 men, just 4% of the sample, were responsible for 28% of the reported violence.
Fantastic stuff, Emma.
It's the invidiousness of some of these people that can make them hard to deal with - hell, I'm a bolshie dyke, and yet I sometimes have trouble with swimming against the currents of social censure of "making a fuss". And also, we're programmed to be "fair". If that weird skeevy person is making you uncomfortable, it's not "fair" to treat them with too much reserve if they're in your social circle (unless they do something way beyond the pale). I think so often these people will insinuate themselves in a largish social circle as a kind of camouflage in the herd. Everyone knows them, they're not really best mates with anyone, some people avoid them, and yet they keep popping up everywhere. We tend to give more trust to people we associate with, even casually -- and some people cash in on this tendency.
We need to spot the rapists, and we need to shut down the social structures that give them a license to operate. They are in the population, among us. They have an average of six victims, women that they know, and therefore likely some women you know. They use force sometimes, but mostly they use intoxicants. They don’t accidentally end up in a room with a woman too drunk or high to consent or resist; they plan on getting there and that’s where they end up.
A lot more good info in that post on the preponderance of rapists in the population - there should be no more belief in the myth that most rapes are committed by strangers lurking in alleyways. Of all the women I know who have been sexually assaulted, only one has been seriously assaulted by a complete stranger. Also, Thomas' post describes how, according to two studies, the majority of them are repeat offenders.
I think someone has mentioned it before, but this post on Schrödinger's Rapist compellingly describes the calculations an isolated woman (mainly women, but not always) often makes when encountering (mostly) men. Rapists don't come with big warning signs stamped on their foreheads. Maybe that guy making the shitty joke just has no decent social boundaries... or maybe it's not just that. There's another long long long comment thread there with many reporting their experiences on people who insist on trespassing on personal boundaries.
Sure, there is a heck of a lot of a difference in degree between some guy sitting too close to you and making suggestive "jokes" versus rape, but these posts and the comments demonstrate just how much they're on the same continuum. If someone doesn't honour the minor social boundaries, how much will they honour the more fundamental boundaries? In my experience, if someone steps over that line in the smaller aspects, it's not that hard for them to step over it in the more serious contexts, if they think they can get away with it.
That's right. Also, I thought your description of the target of your ire was pretty precise, actually.
More precise than those who purport to speak for the "blue collar" masses and yet blow that old whistle.
One thing I didn't highlight about the advantages of S/MIME (beyond not having to download and run key-generation and mail client add-ons) is that public certificate distribution is easy - just send someone a digitally signed email (you need to ensure the option to include the cert is selected).
On receiving the signed message, all the recipient needs to do (in Outlook) is click on the signature prompt and select "add to contacts".
Since the key exchange is a bit "backwards" compared to PGP, they can now send you encrypted messages. You'd need to receive a digitally-signed message from them (it can be encrypted as well) to encrypt email back.
For more food for thought, these days I'd probably prefer to use S/MIME over PGP. Integration isn't a problem with most modern mail clients (http://email.about.com/od/smimesoftware/S_MIMEEnabled_Email_Software.htm) - it's built-in with no addons needed. It's a slight PITA having to get the cert installed and configured in the mail client, but it's a download > install rather than generating and installing. Hint to Windows users, download a cert in IE even if you normally use Firefox - Firefox has its own certificate cache and it's annoying to have to export it from there and install it into the OS cache. (ETA: if you follow the link to install the Comodo cert from their email, it looks like it installs it correctly even if you're in Firefox.)
You need a third-party-signed certificate, but there are free providers: http://www.instantssl.com/ssl-certificate-products/free-email-certificate.html
This is a basic guide for installing in Outlook, but just google "[mail client] smime" for instructions for most products: http://www.marknoble.com/tutorial/smime/smime.aspx. I would not recommend using Thawte certs as specified in this article - they require ID to "verify" who you are.
There are Gmail S/MIME addons - one's a Firefox addon, and another is called Penango (ironically used by the US Air Force).