Decades of failing to recognize ADHD in girls has created a “lost generation” of women
Not the gender equality we had hoped for.
By Jenny Anderson

“In Understanding Girls with AD/HD, Littman and her co-authors explain that ADHD was first diagnosed in young, white boys, with a key indicator being hyperactivity. As a result, guidelines were written around how it manifests in boys, and research is almost exclusively focused on boys (1% is specific to girls, Littman says).

It also materializes much later in girls, which was problematic when the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnosis criteria called for symptoms to be visible by age 7. It recently changed the age (pdf) to 12, allowing more girls to be captured.

Dr. Patricia Quinn, one of Littman’s co-authors on the book and a pediatrician in Washington, DC, who founded the National Center For Girls and Women With ADHD, told HuffPo Parents that girls’ symptoms include:a tendency toward daydreamingtrouble following instructionsmaking careless mistakes on homework and tests.ADHD is a chronic neurobiological disorder which affects the brain structurally and chemically, as well as the ways in which various parts of the brain communicate with one another. It is highly heritable, says Frank.

Pressure to perform means many girls internalize their symptoms—disorganization or carelessness—as personal flaws rather than medical issues to be treated through medicine and therapy.

Girls with ADHD are significantly more likely to experience major depression, anxiety, and eating disorders than girls without. “They tend to have few friendships,” Littman says. “As a result of their low self-esteem, they often choose unhealthy relationships in which they may accept punitive criticism and or abuse.”

Teachers and parents often miss the warning signs because feeling disorganized or unfocused often leads to depression and anxiety. Failing to properly diagnose the condition, girls miss out on critical academic services and accommodations, as well as therapy and medication. Many girls end up misdiagnosed and treated with anti-anxiety or depression drugs, some of which exacerbate the effects of ADHD.”
Harvard Agrees: It's Time to Tell Applicants, 'You Are Enough'
I see it all the time: Imposter Syndrome in a thoughtful and talented seventeen year-old who has barely begun to understand what life will bring; who has racked up but a small fraction of achieveme...

Look at us! We’re in the HuffPo!

Officer Montgomery

Officer Marcus Montgomery of Fort Walton Beach, Fla., was called to take care of an employee issue last month at the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society. While conducting the investigation, he met a puppy that had been left outside the shelter in a basket. The two had an instant connection, and Montgomery took the dog home the same day. He named the pit bull terrier Kylo. “I thought that grown man was going to turn into a puddle,” the shelter’s director told HuffPo. “He said, ‘I can’t! I can’t!’” (via Facebook)
HuffPost Gay Voices Rebrands to More Inclusive HuffPost Queer Voices
Noah Michelson, editorial director for HuffPost Queer Voices, talks to The Advocate about reclaiming the word "queer" and the importance of making a diverse online space for LGBT people to share their stories.

After a strategic rebranding effort, The Huffington Post debuted the latest incarnation of its popular LGBT section, aptly named HuffPost Queer Voices.

According to an introductory blog post penned by HuffPo’s editorial director, Noah Michelson, the new name — which replaces HuffPost Gay Voices — was chosen in an attempt to create a more inclusive online editorial space that better represents the LGBT population at large.

“We, like many others before us, have chosen to reclaim ‘queer’ and to rename the section HuffPost Queer Voices because we believe that word is the most inclusive and empowering one available to us to speak to and about the community — and because we are inspired by all of the profound possibilities it holds for self-discovery, self-realization and self-affirmation,” Michelson wrote in his post. “We also revere its emphasis on intersectionality, which aids in creating, building and sustaining community while striving to bring about the liberation of all marginalized people, queer or not.”


anonymous asked:

Contrary to what huffpo would have us all believe; women have more academic opportunities afforded them through scholarships, preferential treatment in classes from elementary to high school (as in teaching and coursework), see very little sexual discrimination in the STEM fields (I should know, my mother has a masters in Psychology). So, that male student can quit pandering, because it's bullshit.

I assume you are referencing this post:

Okay, so I can vaguely see where you’re coming from on this– that yes, women get certain benefits that men don’t when it comes to education. But why is that the case? Women get these benefits because they have been historically deprived of the right to education, and are also discriminated against indirectly in STEM fields. Are people of color equal to white people just because affirmative action makes some small impact in alleviating inequality? No. Similarly, scholarships and special programs for women only make a tiny dent in the pervasive inequality that riddles academia.

Two summers ago, I went to a computer science program and found myself one of two women in a 15-person class. The teacher consistently picked on and mocked me and my female classmate throughout the session, from unplugging our computer monitors every so often, to holding us to an unfairly high standard compared to our male peers, to joking that we might be distracted by looking up pictures of hot guys on the internet during class. The physics professor I’ve worked with is one of five women in her department of 40 people, and often loses funding to her male peers. All the science competitions I attend are swamped by guys, and the majority of TED talks, speakers, and leaders I see regularly on science are men. Women face subtle discrimination from childhood in STEM, contrary to your belief. Their brothers are consistently the ones who go with their fathers to repair the car, or who get the new video game, or who are praised for entering in a science fair. Their teachers give them lower grades than boys who perform at equal or lower levels. You can’t say that women see little discrimination in STEM fields until they are treated equally to boys throughout their entire careers.

If you don’t take me at my word, which you are of course free to, check out these studies, or these stats. I have listened to your point of view, but my own experience has given me clear indication that women in STEM are far, far from equal.

beauty standards suck because once you acknowledge that they’re pervasive and have no reason to exist, you 1) stop following them, but then are subject to ridicule by employers/family/people against you in an argument as a derailment tactic, 2) you continue following them in order to not appease a flock of criticism, or 3) you become Mary Jo Feminist and write huffpo thinkpieces about how shaving your legs is the most feminist thing since planned parenthood 

anonymous asked:

I never said that men deserve to be fined? Only that the ads against rude commuting behaviors are balanced. I also didn't know that you could be fined for that, but if it means women get fined for having their bags on seats then fine? It's not an 'issue' but it is rude ie. exaggerated spreading. Not normal spreading. It's like they think they're on a beach soaking up the sun or getting their dick sucked spreading. Also, fuck off with this "one sex can't comment on the other sex" bullshit.

See it’s a law though - you didn’t have to say it, it exists.

Women aren’t fined, it’s called “manspreading”. It’s existence it’s literally a direct result of feminists lobbying for it and making it a huge deal on social media.

It’s not “balanced”, not when news sites like Huffpo report about manspreading like its a huge deal but say nothing about women who pile their shopping bags and purses in seats - which, by the by, they defend by saying they do it so “creepy men” won’t sit next to them.

You know why men sit with their legs apart? Imagine a triangle - congrats, that’s how a woman’s center of gravity falls naturally. With wider hips and narrower shoulders, it’s comfortable for them to sit with their legs together.

Now flip that triangle over on its point, and imagine trying to balance it. Congrats, that’s how a man’s center of gravity falls, and yes - all that weight falls on our tailbone. Not to mention the balance issue, so how do we solve this? You widen the base of support - by spreading your legs.

99% of the “manspreading” photos I see are just guys sitting normally.

Oh, and when you’ve actually experienced having your nuts crushed between your thighs for an hour on a train you can tell me all about it. This isn’t about “one sex can’t comment”, this is about you having no clue what you’re talking about while making a bunch of HUGE assumptions about why guys sit the way they do.

Use less salt, you’ll live longer.


I’m beginning to believe that a one party system would be preferable to the Republican /Democrat charade.

Reading about the Flint water scandal is pushing me in this direction.

In the record of this crisis there are exclusively Democrats at every level of the failed decision making process.

Though because a Republican governor appointed a Democratic city manager AFTER the decision was made to use the Flint River as a water source, it is the fault of the Republican.

Like so many distilled words in our newspeak culture “Republican” has become shorthand for certain conditions, and so by extension the apologetic rhetoric shifts it to an issue of deregulation which is a euphemism for a lack of government control.

This is a blatantly false narrative.

“Republicans” in the hands of the state propagandists at Salon, Daily Kos, Huffpo,, etc. are used as a foil to excuse government malfeasance and failure.

They’re the dump that gets the beloved institutions a mulligan even if the manufactured truth is ridiculous in the face of the facts.

Partisanship is so poisonous that the public will reject the truth to shield themselves from their responsibility in the matter.

Having a one party system would allow us to stop pretending and take away this tool that is used to create an illusion and toy with mass psychology.


Damon Young

Last week, I was asked by HuffPo Live to appear with three other people on a segment about the moral quandary of supporting an artist or an athlete with an unsavory past. The half hour-long conversation was supposed to touch on a few different instances of this happening in pop culture, but ended up focusing solely on R. Kelly. While it was structured in a way to place people against R. Kelly and people for R. Kelly in the same conversation, at this point, the pro R-uh argument is so weak that the “opposing sides” lasted for maybe four minutes. The rest of the time was spent with the anti camp pointing out the absurdity of things like R. Kelly calling himself the Pied Piper, and the pro camp basically saying “Yeah, I guess you all are right. I should probably stop stepping in the name of love too.”

Whenever I write about R. Kelly, most people — well, most people who read and respond to what I write — agree with what I’m saying. But, invariably, there are always a few who question my intent. They don’t even bother challenging what I’m saying. Instead, they ask why I’m even saying what I’m saying; with the implication being “Why are you hating on this man?” And, on some level, I get it. There’s nothing I can say at this point that would have a tangible effect on the lives of those sexually assaulted by him. Nor is there anything I can say that will make him face some sort of legal justice. That ship seems to have sailed, anyway.

Anyway, to answer that question, I write about R. Kelly so people will continue to have those types of conversations — and, hopefully, eventual epiphanies — about him. So people who continue to support him financially and creatively are fully aware of who they’re supporting and what that support means. So that, if you are one of these people, you have to admit and accept that you value the pleasure you receive from listening to his music more than you care about divesting support from a person who’s been accused of multiple sex crimes against multiple young Black girls. And, I’d even go as far to say that today, in 2015, R. Kelly is a proxy. The current criticisms of him are more directed towards his fans and the type of mindset that excuses, willfully ignores, and even supports this type of criminality. We talk and write about R. Kelly today to help prevent more R. Kelly’s from existing tomorrow.

Also, if you happen to still be an R. Kelly supporter and you happen to be reading this, you should also be aware that your savior is a fucking coward too. This, his pervasive cowardice, is as essential to R. Kelly’s persona as anything else. It’s just as much a part of him as “I Believe I Can Fly” is. Only a coward would intentionally stalk, lure, and sexually assault the people in his community with the least amount of power and status. Only a coward would choose those who need the most protection as his prey. Only a coward would, for years (decades!), refuse to even acknowledge any of these allegations in a meaningful way. Or offer any type of contrition. Because that would take some guts. Cowards don’t have guts. And so it’s fitting that R. Kelly, that singing-ass coward from Chicago, would walk off the set of theHuffPost Live today when faced with difficult questions during an interview he agreed to do.

Because, again, that’s who R. Kelly is. Prolific and influential musician. Rapist. And coward.

And that’s who you are supporting.

anonymous asked:

(KimmelAnon) My bad for the confusion, I have trouble explaining what I mean to myself. I've so many thoughts and they're all shiny. I meant she makes the face on Kimmel because she is trying to pretend or appear as if she doesnt know/remember why David used to get upset. I related it to Huffpo "its not gonna happen"because she does the same manner of trying really hard to sell a point that she knows herself is not true. Does that make sense? Im not well w/ eloquent wording or expressing thought

OH! Yes that makes more sense. I see what you’re saying.

I’ve so many thoughts and they’re all shiny. -ME