Agonist vs. Antagonist: Lost Opportunities for Metaphor

I am having such a hard time keeping my mouth shut right now!

My professor is giving us a Pharmacodynamics lecture and explaining the difference between an agonist and an antagonist. Basically, an agonist binds to a receptor and produces a response that mimics a natural body response; an antagonist binds to a receptor and prevents that natural response from occuring. Both have an affinity for the receptor site but one acts, the other prevents action.

A few slides before this, my prof greatly amused herself (and us) by explaining the concept of intrinsic activity as follows:

“So, you know, you meet someone, and sometimes the hormones are just like PING! That’s like what a drug with intrinsic activity does when it binds to a receptor – it’s going to elicit an intense response! So think when you and that person biiiiiiiiiiiind” (wink wink) “there could be fireworks! Or, you know, someone who doesn’t have that ability to activate the receptor after binding . . . womp womp, not such an intense response. Too bad so sad, maybe next time you should just Netflix and chill.”

What does this have to do with agonists and antagonists?

I am DYING to explain antagonists as follows:

“Ever heard of a cockblocker? The hot chick’s friend who hangs out at her side all night and keeps sketchy guys from scoring? That’s an antagonist! She’s not actively making it with the hot chick, but she’s blocking any dick from getting entrance.”

Super scientific and easy to remember, if I do say so myself!

 

A law against sex-specific abortion, and my thoughts on it

Lila Rose and Live Action recently conducted a sting showing Planned Parenthood counselors aiding and abetting sex selective abortions. That is, the visitor to the clinic explains that she wants to ultrasound the baby to determine gender (typically done at 20 weeks) so that she can abort it if it’s a girl.

Ugh.

So, first, I think we can all agree that aborting a baby on basis of a penis, or lack thereof, is disgusting. Morally degraded and degenerate. Anyone disagree?

That, I think, is pretty noncontroversial. So I’ll skip on the part where I might get tarred-and-feathered: I’m opposed to any law banning abortion on basis of sex. Because that descends into thoughtcrime.

I know, I know. Let me explain a few things.

1. I’m against second-trimester abortions in general. Unless there’s a strong medical reason that the mother needs an abortion, I disagree with the practice.

2. Sex can’t be determined until the 20th week. (For those of you not immersed in baby details 24/7 – there are 40 weeks in a pregnancy, so the second trimester begins about week 13.) Therefore, in my perfect world, the whole thing becomes a non-issue.

3. That being said, in our world, assuming that a second-trimester abortion is legal for any reason or no reason at all, it makes no sense to me to criminalize it because of a specific motivation behind taking the action. Think about it.

“I want to abort my baby if it turns out to be a girl.”

“That’s a federal crime, and you’ll go to jail!”

“Oh. Well, then, um, I might decide to abort my baby if I suddenly decide, at week 22, that my family can’t afford a kid at that time.”

“Okay then! Sounds great!”

Does that make sense to you?

Either it is legal to terminate a pregnancy/kill a baby (I’ll put it both ways) at four-to-five months old, or it’s not. If it’s legal, it’s legal for any reason behind the decision – finances, gender, morning sickness, whatever. If it’s illegal, then it’s illegal; the motive behind it doesn’t figure.

I’ve got more thoughts on abortion, but I’ll explore those in a later post. This is plenty to start me off on a Monday morning.

Yes, we smashed a Nikki Haley pinata, but don’t worry, it’s all in good fun!

I’ve had this open in my browser for a while but didn’t get around to sharing it. Did you know that the leader of the South Carolina AFL-CIO smashed a pinata with Nikki Haley’s face on it? Repeatedly?

But that’s not the part that made me giggle with hysterical glee. It was the reassurances that they weren’t MAD when they did it – so it’s all okay!! [emphasis mine]

“They made it and I would have played the game with them no matter it would have been pin the tail on the donkey with Nikki Haley’s face on it. I still would have played,” Dewitt told ABC News over the phone. “There was no ill intent. We were certainly have a good time. I’m not mad or angry.”

“We’ve been the brunt of her comments now for two years and that’s what the whole thing was. She’s been whacking at us over the last two years,” Dewitt, who has been president of the South Carolina AFL-CIO for the past 16 years and will retire at the end of June, continued. “Anyone that knows me knows there was no ill intent at all. Our folks don’t go to speeches with guns and things like that. We have very loving people in our unions who will take up money for people or a vet. We just heard these comments by the governor for over the two years. They were using a memoir of the last two years I’ve lived under her leadership.

NOW do you understand? It’s okay! They were happy shiny people when they smashed her face, not those evil gun-toting vet-hating wingnuts! So everything’s fine!!!

And one more dollop of humor for you: “Nikki Haley tries to capitalize off video of union leader.” Yes, really. That wily and evil Nikki Haley!!!

Duke outlaws tipsy hookups, sex with nerds, sex with geeks — well, sex in general.

Check out Duke’s new “sexual misconduct” policy:

Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.

So my question is – why does Duke hate nerds?  And women in general?  And also, men in general?  Because it’s now impossible to have consensual sex with any of those groups.  Individuals may think they’re consenting, sure, but that’s just because they don’t know any better.

“Real or perceived power differentials between individuals” — good god a’mighty, have you ever seen a broader, more general classification?  Some feminists think it’s impossible for a woman to be as powerful a man, both physically and culturally; some men think that the campus and rules are structured so that he-said-she-said arguments always go against the men.  And I don’t even have to go into LGBT issues.  So there you go, I just declared 100% of the student population to have a perceived power differential.

Memo to Duke —

I had my (small) share of romance at Ye Olde Liberal Arts School.  Some of my choices were wise, some were not.  Some I regretted, some I didn’t.  But each of those choices was just that — a CHOICE.  A choice *I* made, a choice that belonged to me.

There is ACTUAL sexual assault on campus, you know.  Why not concentrate on that?  Instead of declaring that 100% of your students are victims who can’t make up their own minds?

Sincerely,
Lissa

(h/t Dr. Helen)

So much for privacy in the bedroom

Hey, Mike, let’s move to France!!  That way, every time you call me silly I can call the cops on you.  Brilliant!

Under a new law, France is to become the first country in the world to ban ‘ psychological violence’ within marriage.

The law would apply to cohabiting couples and to both men and women. [snip]

The law is expected to cover every kind of insult including repeated rude remarks about a partner’s appearance, false allegations of infidelity and threats of physical violence.

Police are being urged to issue a caution in the first instance, but repeat offenders could face a fine, a restraining order or even jail.

Critics said the measure was a gimmick produced in response to lobbying by feminists and would be impossible to implement.

But French premier Francois Fillon, who announced the law, said: ‘The creation of this offence will allow us to deal with the most insidious situations – situations that leave no visible scars, but which leave victims torn up inside.’

You know what else can leave a woman torn up inside?  When her husband leaves her.  So let’s make a law against divorce, shall we?

No?  That wouldn’t go over so well in France?

It’s just so stupid on so many levels.  It assumes that quarreling adults can’t solve problems themselves, nor with the help of friends, family, marriage counselors, the clergy, and nude sunbathers.  Noooooo, only The Law can take care of men and women having a verbal argument!

It invites a beautiful pantheon of he-said-she-said.  “She called me a queer!”  “No I didn’t, you called me a bitch!”  Well, gracious, let’s have the court get to the bottom of this.

You know what would be easier?  Let’s install electronic surveillance inside every room of every house, so we can tell exactly who said what.  That makes sense to me.

After all, it’s not like there’s any actual crime in France that The Law should be addressing.  Nosirree, it’s all escargots and frog legs, so they might as well tackle the knotty problem of spouses squabbling.

IDIOCY.

(h/t The Corner)

Chivalry versus condescension

I’ve mentioned before that the gunnies around here are some of the most courteous, friendly and welcoming people I’ve come across.

Some of it stems from the sheer difficulty of becoming a gunnie in this neck of the woods.  Anyone who wants to climb that mountain of regulatory hoops (how’s that for a mixed metaphor?!) is welcomed as a comrade-in-arms.  (Jay G‘s written about this before — about how the burdensome laws make 2A folks band together, that when you find someone who shoots, you’ve likely got some things in common — but I couldn’t find the post.  Jay? UPDATE — this is the one I meant.  Thanks Jay!)

On the other hand, some folks feel it’s their duty to introduce new people, especially women, into the joys of shooting.  LawDog, for example, has written about the proper (and less-than-stellar) way to break in a newbie and feels that the future of the shooting depends on women.  And I wouldn’t exactly classify Texas as gun-hostile!

I’ve come across multiple essays explaining

– things to avoid unless you want your wife to hate guns

– chastising gun shop workers who ignore women or assume they can only handle .22

– warning against misogyny, even the well-meant kind, in the gunnie community

And the one time I’ve walked into a gun shop, the owner chatted me up in a friendly way then commented how nice it was to see a woman walk into the store.

In other words, I’ve found that the shooters around here are overwhelmingly chivalrous, not patronizing.

Which is more than I can say for the range officer who told Shoothouse Barbie she would have to wear ear protection “because guns are loud.”

Pissant.

Overcoming instinctual dislike

I’m of the opinion that women can be meaner, nastier, cruder, harsher and more evil to other women than male misogynists could ever hope to emulate.  It’s no surprise to me, therefore, that some women dislike Palin because she’s beautiful and successful and holds a traditionally male-dominated political viewpoint.  Credit to Julia O’Malley for recognizing the feeling for what it is:

Sure, some of us don’t like Palin’s politics, but we should pay attention to what else is going on. I laughed a little when I watched Letterman’s jokes. It wasn’t because they were funny. It was because they were mean. And somehow watching someone be mean to America’s Hottest Governor felt good. And, that wasn’t feminist at all.

The fact is, even with the pumps and the winking, she didn’t deserve it. Maybe Palin is an opportunist, maybe she’s a drama queen, maybe she’s using a feminist argument to make political hay, but in this case her underlying point is right on. Letterman was gross and out of line, no matter which daughter he was talking about. Making Letterman apologize was a win for her and for women everywhere.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Palin, and there might even been some reasons to dislike her.

But hotness shouldn’t be one of them.

It took some thinking on her part to overcome her first reaction, which was pretty much “She wore sexy heels and played up her hotness, so she deserved it.”  And I think it’s great that she did.

But honestly, the whole “she played off her hotness to gain points politically, so she deserves to be lampooned as a sex bunny” thing is ridiculous.  As I recall, Palin wasn’t the one parading around in her swimsuit for paparazzi so that reporters could gush about her glistening . . . er . . . pecs. 

(h/t Hot Air headlines)

Manly Cities, ahoy!

Courtesy of Ace comes this Combo study (take it with many grains of salt, ’cause a handful of those will kill your sodium content for the day):

Top 10 Manly Cities:

1. Nashville, Tenn.
    2. Charlotte, N.C.
    3. Oklahoma City, Okla.
    4. Cincinnati, Ohio
    5. Denver, Colo.
    6. St. Louis, Mo.
    7. Columbus, Ohio
    8. Kansas City, Mo.
    9. Indianapolis, Ind.
    10. Toledo, Ohio

Bottom 10 Manly Cities:

40. Seattle, Wash.
    41. Sacramento, Calif.
    42. Miami, Fla.
    43. San Diego, Calif.
    44. Oakland, Calif.
    45. Washington, District of Columbia
    46. Chicago, Ill.
    47. Portland, Ore.
    48. San Francisco, Calif.
    49. Los Angeles, Calif.
    50. New York, N.Y.

Of course, the study itself is sort of a fallacy; everyone knows that REALLY manly men don’t live in cities.  They live on their own land and build cannons and stuff.  Right, Doubletrouble? 

(Oh, and they date Mrs. Doubletrouble.  That was one kickass lady.)

Quote of the Day

Gina: Social historians concede that civilization arose and prospered from men accomplishing things to impress — and thus to bed — women. And it turns out that women can be impressed and beddedby all varieties of complicated things, such as the writing of great poetry, the designing of timelessly beautiful buildings, the discovery of penicillin. Imagine what civilization would be like if it had to arise from women impressing men.

Gene: I’m trying.

Gina: I’ll help you out. The single great accomplishment of civilization to date — probably developed during the Middle Ages — would be the boob job.

And guns, Gina.  Lots and lots of guns. 

(h/t Hot Air Headlines)

Looking Glass News 2-13-09

The recession is hard on a lot of families and demographics, but as usual women are being unfairly and disproportionately affected:

The proportion of men who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen women, who are heavily represented in areas like education and health care [snip].   Men tend to be employed in industries like manufacturing and construction.

“Given how stark and concentrated the job losses are among women, and that men represented a high proportion of the labor force in the beginning of this recession, men are now bearing the burden — or the opportunity, one could say — of being breadwinners,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress.

Riiiiight. 

In case you can’t tell (or didn’t click the link), I flipped “men” and “women” in that article excerpt (and snipped one mention of women inhabiting less business-cyclical sectors).  If 82 percent of the job losses had affected WOMEN, I’m sure they would have done a dispassionate analysis of the types of job the men were left holding, as well as mentioning that it might be an opportunity for men to attain or maintain their role as breadwinners.

In other news, gravity is now optional.

*Note: It wasn’t a bad article.  I think it made some good points and highlighted some of the options that women tend to take more often than men do — namely, taking lower-risk lower-reward jobs in exchange for having more free time and more stability.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  But if you think that a similarly dispassionate article would have been written if the recession job toll flipped the other way — 82% women laid off to only 18% men — then you are out of your freaking mind.

(h/t from another Corner article)