Urza

https://www.google.com/#q=define+sexism

"1. prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism

"2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women."

— n

discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men

[C20: from sex + -ism , on the model of racism ]

'sexist

— n , — adj

"Cultural Dictionary

sexism definition

The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity. Many allege that it still does. ( See also affirmative action, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, glass ceiling, and National Organization for Women.)"

Sexism is to single out a gender by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination.

Yet the very top definition of the word, in the largest online resource in the world, specifically discriminates women being the victims of it, and by inclusion, men as being the aggressors.

Does it not?

If I defined racism as "typically against African Americans", regardless of statistical or historical value, wouldn't I be committing the act of racism in itself?

Doesn't this definition defeat the value of equality that people seek to achieve from acknowledging sexism as a human condition? Not a gender specific one?

It would seem to me that the very inclusion of this discrimination in the definition of the word echoes a deeply ignored cultural flaw that we as a society now prefer to damselize women and demonize men. Until we are capable of seeing women just as culpable as men in the ways of sexism, I see very little meaning to the word. In fact, I find it insulting.

Am I wrong to think that?

I would like a detailed medical explanation upon how our bodies benefit from such a cleanse.

After reading online I view the Master Cleanse as a negative. Multiple sources state very specifically and clearly as to why it is a waste of time. I believe those sources as they are quoted from doctors, nutritionists, and dieticians.

I am still interested in learning more about it because I have many friends that say it is beneficial.

The proponents of the cleanse, as I understand it, is that you can lose weight, "reset your natural calorie intake", become more energetic, and "cleanse your body of toxins".

Here are the areas I hold factual at the current time in response to these proponents:

Weight: Eliminating protein and other important nutrients from your diet will not cause you to lose fat, it will cause you to lose muscle. Only drinking and not EATING will cause your metabolism to slow down, and any muscle weight you lose you will now regain in fat after the diet is over. Why would this be untrue? What does the Master Cleanse do to change these facts?

"Resting your Calorie Intake": My friends keep telling me this, and I haven't a damn clue what they mean by it. I logically think that there is nothing natural about NOT EATING. It sounds like a phrase a con-artist uses to try to confuse people and inflate his sell.

Energy: My friends tell me they feel "more energetic". Yet they can't exercise. They can't expend energy, yet they have more of it? How is that logical? Is it endorphins released by your brain because you are starving? Is it some "high" they get from not eating? Do they gain energy AFTER the cleanse? Because if you starved yourself for 10 days, and then started eating again, pretty sure you'd feel wonderful and much more energetic BECAUSE you STARTED eating again.

"Cleanse Your Body of Toxins": What toxins? Food? How does cutting nutrients and protein help with that? How does going on a liquid only diet help with that? Why are the human liver, kidney, and skin that we've developed and evolved for millennia not capable of doing this for us? Did we stop evolving?

I understand a liquid diet may be beneficial to the digestive system for two, MAYBE three days. But AFTER that amount of time, it seems like you are just plain and simply starving your body.

I would like sources, responses, opinions. All is welcomed. Please explain to me why this diet (for 10 days) has MORE pros than cons.

I initially used Aspen bedding for my mouse. She was in it for about a day and a half before I realized she was allergic to it.

It has been about two weeks and shes only continued to sneeze. I've tired leaving her in a little bucket with a t-shirt on the counter of my bathroom while I take a hot shower. . .Hoping the steam would help her breath better. I've been doing that for about three days in a row.

There isn't any discharge from her nose or eyes or anything like that. . .just sneezing.

The closest pocket-pet Vet that can treat her is 55 minutes away, and I don't have an operating car. The area I live in is sort of isolated, so a bus isn't an option.

A cab would be $100 dollars more than I can afford, and in all honesty I don't think any of my friends are so fond of mice that they would do me the favor of the drive.

Are there any medicines I could use to help her that don't require a prescription from a Vet?