Our Bodies of Data

Throughout the 1970s and ’80s, women argued that until they gained access to information about their very own bodies, there can be no equality. In Bodies of information, Wendy Kline considers the methods in which extraordinary women labored to place the feminine physique at the middle of women’s liberation. As Kline reveals, the battle to attain this knowledge unified ladies but also divided them-in accordance with race, class, sexuality, or degree of professionalization. Every of the 5 chapters of Bodies of data examines a distinct second or setting of the women’s motion in order to provide life to the ideas, expectations, and pitfalls encountered by the advocates of women’s health: the making of Our Our bodies, Ourselves (1973); the conflicts surrounding the training and practice of women’s pelvic exams; the emergence of abortion as a feminist subject; the battles over contraceptive regulation on the 1983 Depo-Provera FDA hearings; and the rise of the profession of midwifery. Together with an epilogue that considers the experiences of the daughters of 1970s feminists, Our bodies of data is a vital contribution to the research of the bodies-that marked the lives-of feminism’s second wave.

It ran for sixty three performances from February 12, 1964, to April 5, 1964. It featured Karin Wolfe (Jo), Susan Browning (Meg), Judith McCauley (Beth), April Shawhan (Amy), Don Stewart (Laurie), Joy Hodges (Marmee), Lowell Harris (John Brooke) and Mimi Randolph (Aunt March). A radio play starring Katharine Hepburn as Jo was made to accompany the 1933 movie. Grand Audiobooks hold the present copyright.  clear ample penis enhancer  has impressed a variety of other literary retellings by various authors. Longest, David (1998). Little Girls of Orchard House: A Full-length Play. Sparknotes: literature. Spark Instructional Publishing. Alberghene, Janice (1999). "Autobiography and the Boundaries of Interpretation on Reading Little Women and the Living is straightforward". In Alberghene, Janice M.; Clark, Beverly Lyon (eds.). Little Girls and the Feminist Imagination: Criticism, Controversy, Personal Essays. Cheever, Susan (2011). Louisa Could Alcott: A personal Biography. Cullen Sizer, Lyde (2000). The Political Work of Northern Women Writers and the Civil Struggle, 1850-1872. Univ of North Carolina Press.

People are irrational maximizers who wish to earn cash NOW, and frequently make the mistake of promoting low and buying excessive. But in case you decide to the philosophy of HODL, you surrender your freedom (choices) to promote at the dip, and hopefully, become profitable over time. A part of why this technique works is buying and selling costs. Even if you could precisely predict the market, there’s a price to continually changing your position. If you purchase and promote your bitcoin through Coinbase, it's a must to give up 2-3% of the trade amount on each transaction. If two individuals had 1 bitcoin originally of the month, and one particular person HODL’d whereas the other bought it and re-bought it each day, the first particular person would find yourself with much more value just by not paying the buying and selling prices. If the value didn’t transfer at all, and we assume a 2% transaction price, the primary individual would still have 1 bitcoin whereas the second could be right down to .54btc.

The fallacy is based on Herb Simon’s work on “satisficing.” Essentially, in conditions where the best selection is unclear, we tend to choose the “good enough” possibility. It’s a manner for our not-so-rational brains to make decisions in a world the place they may in any other case spend an infinite period of time calculating good preferences. It’s why individuals who lose their emotional cores can’t make decisions. Pure logic machines can’t satisfice. Somebody is a satisficer if they can default to the ok option. They’re a maximizer if they need the perfect option. Which camp you fall into will fluctuate relying on how much you care about the realm you’re making choices in, but we also are usually extra macro-satisficers or macro-maximizers. For those who truly tried to maximise every thing, you’d never make any decisions and be a neurotic mess. For those who had been an ideal satisficer, your decisions can be instant. Most of us are someplace along the satisficing - maximizing spectrum. One in all the most important influences on how a lot we tend in the direction of maximization is the availability of options.