•
There’s not a thing wrong with wanting a traditional family and traditional gender role life. A lot of people want that and life doesn’t have to be super complicated to be rewarding.
When you start spending all your time on the internet making monetized content about it and deliberately choosing to engage with the absolute worst people on the internet is where it becomes a suspect thing where the behavior doesn’t match the stated goal
•
It really annoys me how creepy misogynist awful people think they get to represent the traditional family.
I have a super traditional looking family. Stay at home mom and everything. But it is sick and disgusting to act like having a setup you enjoy means it’s the only valid one. You see, we care more about raising a decent and happy person than indoctrinating them into some belief system that focuses on who our enemies are.
Rejecting loving families because they look different than traditional does not make you the representatives of traditional, fucknuts.
Hey, are you accusing me of being a bad person because I run a Mormon parenting vlog while my kids are malnourished and escaping and running for help?!
I'm not Ruby Franke or Jodi Hildebrandt. I don't know why you'd think that. Stop asking.
•
This - while I'd argue that feeding raw milk to children, for instance, is probably in violation of local statutes in most of the US, the overall premise isn't necessarily invalid - the idea of forcing it on others and packaging/selling it as an influencer is what's flawed.
My wife and I have a carefully negotiated relationship that is nowhere near tradwife, but not necessarily contemporary traditional either. I ended up in the hospital recently, and all that went out the window - she spoke for me, signed various forms of consent on my behalf, and the like as/when necessary.
The "tradwife" package seems to ignore that such moments will be necessary in any life, especially one with kids involved, and certainly any life that involves the risks of e.g., farm work. People get hurt and need consent for treatment, folks get sick and need to handle business over the phone but are unable to speak on their own behalf because they're sick, etc.
From where I sit, anything resembling what the tradwife influencers are selling is completely invalid/impractical without an 'escape hatch' allowing the (generally) submissive spouse to take the reins as an when necessary and of their own volition... along with ensuring that said spouse has a functional understanding of how and when to do so, per the laws of their particular state.
Without that, you're just playing a damned risky game that has a realistic chance of causing serious injury to one or more involved parties in the medium term.
There is something wrong with a traditional gender role life. Traditional gender roles are misogynist. Now, sure, a grown woman can consent to a BSDM lifestyle with her husband, that's fine. But you do not involve your kids in that shit.
Traditional gender roles are bondage. They are. And if you have a relationship that practices BDSM as a lifestyle, you need to follow modern consent practices. Conservatives want to talk about kink at pride? Grooming children? That's what this is. This is grooming. This is exposing children to your fetish and telling them it's the lord's plan for them.
•
There is something wrong with a traditional gender role life.
No there isn’t.
If a queer person is empowered to tell a conservative that “listen I’m gonna need you to STFU about my lifestyle choices, there’s not a thing wrong with them if that’s what I have decided to do” - which is 100% fair - then any person who feels that traditional gender roles suit them fine needs to be empowered to make the same STFU statement to anyone who’s somehow decided that they get to make the same determination on behalf of someone who just wants a family and kids and a farm somewhere, because they’ve decided that’s what will make them happy.
Misogyny is misogyny. “Normal” gender roles are different. Maybe the issue is a difference of definitions; there’s a certain amount of spousal abuse and authoritarianism that got written down as “traditional” by the ones that like to practice it. If that’s what you’re talking about or what you thought I meant by “traditional,” I will be fully in agreement with you that it’s fucked. What I am talking about is something different though.
Traditional gender roles are abusive 100% of the time. Now, if your transfemme polycule wants to play out a Stepford Wives kink fantasy (I am citing my own ex's fetish), then that's fine. That can be consensual. But if you're talking about actual tradition, the actual relationships of the past, that shit is abusive no matter what.
We are talking about a system where you can't divorce your husband if he beats you. Spousal rape isn't real rape. Abortion is illegal. No painkillers during birth. No birth control. Women being sold off to other families. Treated as possessions. You can't have a system of slavery and say that isn't abusive. There are no good slaveowners. And there are no good traditional husbands. Many men of 100 years ago were good people who meant well and did their best to do well. But the system they lived in was innately abusive. For all the kindness and decency they gave their wives, they could not give their wives the freedom to choose another life. And that lack of freedom is abuse. Often not the husband's fault, because he lived in a society where he was expected to behave that way.
But today, we have moved beyond those norms. So if a husband wants to go back to that old system and own his wife, then it is his fault. He is an abuser, no matter how kind or gentle. There is a way to make the appearance of a traditional relationship work as a kink. A way to ensure enthusiastic consent. There's roleplay to be done. But it won't actually be a traditional marriage. The people advocating actual traditional marriages, they want the abuse.
•
100% of the time, huh
Just an unbroken line of black eyes and unwanted pregnancies going back to the beginning of time, huh
Dude. If you want conservatives to steer clear from making wild accusations about what goes on in queer communities and why their whole lifestyle is unhealthy and awful 100% of the time, so they don’t need any further evidence other than just participating in the lifestyle to accuse everyone of taking part in some kind of horror even if they are just innocent people trying to live their life without being shamed for it, you need to extend the same courtesy.
I feel like we’re going in circles. That’s my take on it though.
You're misunderstanding what exactly they were referring to, the modern trad wife movement, which is literally about giving up your rights to a man. You literally said in your next comment that you didn't even read what they said. Why are you acting like you know what you're talking about if you didn't even read it?
I also really think you need to check yourself on the "it's your fault conservatives make wild accusations about queer people" bit there. Just really not okay to try and lay blame at their feet for that. Like do you have any idea how exploitative that is? "You're contributing to the transphobic hate movement unless you change your opinion" is basically what you're saying. Which is a really fucked up thing to say to a trans person. Our oppression is NOT our fault.
•
You're misunderstanding what exactly they were referring to, the modern trad wife movement
Yeah this is a fair point - way back up in my original comment I covered a couple different ways in which the internet “tradwife” thing is fucked, but I didn’t also say that it is explicitly approving of some of the most toxic and misogynistic parts of “conservative” society whether modern or old-school. The whole thing is a core of authoritarianism wrapped in a thin veneer of “traditional gender roles”. I can see I kind of left the door open for misinterpretation because I spoke up about the second without really distinguishing it from the first, when conflating the two is the whole “tradwife influencer” shtick and that’s relevant here. It is fair.
I also really think you need to check yourself on the "it's your fault conservatives make wild accusations about queer people" bit there.
Also not what I meant, although I could see how it could have sounded that way.
What I meant is, if someone’s applying a whole toxic stereotype to 100% of people who pursue a lifestyle they don’t vibe with, that’s wrong, regardless of who’s on which side of it. Not that prejudice against traditional gender roles has any kind of causal relationship with prejudice against non traditional gender roles.
Just an unbroken line of black eyes and unwanted pregnancies going back to the beginning of time, huh
Well, no, the so-called """traditional""" gender roles that tradwives are play-acting aren't universal. They're relatively modern, actually! If they really wanted to get old school, their families would be matrilineal and they'd live in huge extended families.
Well, I made a novel point, and I accounted for the possibility of husbands who were good people and who didn't beat their wives. And then you promptly ignored me and made the same point again while pretending I made a different point than the one I made. If you don't want a circle, don't do one. I told you, history isn't all black eyes. You seem to have just completely pretended I didn't say that.
•
I’m gonna be honest, I read “Traditional gender roles are abusive 100% of the time,” and didn’t bother to read anything else. Maybe that makes me the bad faith guy, but I feel like once I’ve taken one bite of the dinner and it tasted that obviously wrong, I don’t need to just keep eating and hope it gets better.
I just went back and skimmed your whole comment. Okay, so you’re talking about the abusive legal structures that often went alongside consenting traditional roles. Yes, those are fucked, as I already said. If you are against those, I am with you on that, and I am aware that people sometimes call those “traditional” as a way of excusing them. As I already said, that’s not what I am doing and not what I am talking about.
We’re saying, I think, more or less the same thing, as far as what parts are okay and what parts are not. Although you’re still framing it in a way that seems like it’s making this blanket statement about the other grouping that would never be okay directed at a queer or otherwise “friendly” grouping.
Edit: Made less inflammatory
I see your points through the semantic fog. You had it at a problem of definitions and it doesn't appear to have gone away. One side defending personal intent and the other highlighting historic institutional malaise. Very little actually discussing, you both just happened to be making adjacent points in the same topic for the most part.
They're right in their analysis of the mores and norms that the system allows, even if their claim of no good people existing under a broken system is absurd.
You ain't in bad faith, it's more exhausting to get pinged by friendly IFF misreadings than extreme ideological opposites nowadays. That whole leftists eating leftists series of jokes applies somewhat.
and accounted for the possibility of husbands who were good people and who didn't beat their wives.
This summarizes the problem with your argument. You have such biased opinion that this is what you consider giving a concession.
Same energy as "I didn't say ALL trans groom children", basically.
When I think of "traditional gender roles" I think of a loving mother who spends her days in the house cooking and cleaning and looking after the many children, and a loving father who spends his day toiling on the farm to provide food and money for the family.
None of that is non-consensual. I suppose your issue is one of, idk, semantics? Cause when you hear "traditional gender roles" you think of the legal system surrounding it that prevented a woman from leaving the relationship? But those systems were abusive because the people didn't have a choice of what role to play. Now there are many different roles one could play in a relationship, one of those roles are the traditional gender ones. Don't ask me why, it's very far from my first choice of marriage role, but the abuse came from the system surrounding the roles, not the roles themselves.
But at that point you're splitting hairs because your only issue is what they call it, but they call it "traditional gender roles" because most people know what they are talking about and don't associate abuse with it.
You’re just as much an anti choice bigot as the conservatives pushing trad life on people. If a woman makes a choice to stay at home to raise children, that’s valid and not “bondage”.
Choosing to be a stay at home mom is fine and not bondage, that's not what tradwife is. A tradwife chooses to be subservient to her husband and teaches her children that men are superior. Calling it a kink involving kids is letting it off lightly.
The term we’re discussing is “traditional gender roles”. I understand there’s overlap there, but the “trad wife” concept is it’s own thing.
I didn't say bondage was invalid. I said bondage without proper safety measures is invalid.
The woman was left to give birth alone. She had to self administer an epidural in secret. This shit ain't vanilla!
That shit is far and above what normal people mean when they say “traditional gender roles”. Lots of stay at home moms don’t live in abusive relationships, and equating the two is dishonest. My mom and my grandmother both stayed home with kids because it made sense to them, and both their partners showed them nothing but respect and love.
I don't think traditional gender roles and BDSM should really be compared like that. But yes, patriarchal family life and domination are often the centerpieces.
In maths, you have two kinds of relationship between expressions. An equation is when they're the same. A comparison is when they're different.
You're saying I compared BDSM and traditional gender roles, but I didn't. I equated them. I said they're the same. The patriarchy is a system of sexual domination. It's a fetish.
You said not to compare BDSM and traditional gender roles, but I'll ignore you and do it anyway now. What's different about the two is that BDSM is supposed to be done with safe practices to ensure consent, and most people know it. Traditional gender roles have no safe practices. Nobody checks if the wife consents.
Traditional gender roles should be equal to BDSM. We should only be able to make equations between the two. We should not be able to compare them and say they're different. We should be calling this "tradwife" meme a fetish, and pressuring the people who engage in it to practice safe consensual sex.
Plus, you know, equating tradwife bullshit with lefty deviancy is really gonna piss off some conservatives, and that's worth doing all on its own.
You should know that this is equivalent to rednecks doing things to "trigger the libs". Things like putting semi trailer exhaust pipes on their trucks so they can spew clouds of black smoke. I guess you guys can piss each other off, but the rest of the the world just thinks you are idiots.
I was a tiny bit on board with your point, except for the part where you argue against self-determination and self-actualization. Moreover, I followed this thread, and you're not only arguing in bad faith, you are moving the goalposts. Be better.
I mean I'm cishet, but I kind of see your point, especially when kids are involved. Some specialisation of parental roles is fine ofc, but then some parents fall into pretty toxic, patriarchal roles, just because that's how they were raised.
I'm talking like the woman taking on virtually all childcare and household labour and logistics (even when working), in such a way that they're contributing much more into the relationship than their partner.
•
If tradlife were so awesome there wouldn’t be so many painfully aggressive instasmiles in the pics.
Every time I read about these people I can't help but think 'this sounds like a fetish.'
Idk if it were a fetish, I'd be seriously into it... Sort of. Denying your wife an epidural? You are no longer in a dom/sub relationship because you just broke consent. You force your wife to become pregnant before she's ready? That's rape. Dictating that she does all the chores, child rearing, dinner, family shit while you just make money? That's lazy and greedy.
Like all these types are living in the country, super model attractive, clearly pandering to conservatives. Like shit, the idea of having 6 kids? I think that's fun, especially if they are spaced just a bit apart, and plenty of living space. Sure, you get to spend less time with each kid individually, but then you get to watch each one turn into their own person, and hopefully you've given them enough energy that they will live a good life later.
It's a fantasy pandering to conservatives that it can be "real." Since they are influencers? It's automatically not real.
Well, numbers are power, and if you are not a fan of power, then kids are treasure and happiness and joy.
But! People working their ass out to grow 6 kids (I'm not even talking about money, just about watching them not to kill themselves) won't look like this. It won't be easy. It won't be glossy.
And, of course, in a normal traditional family the husband would be just as overloaded. Weekends, bitch? Nah, go fix every shit that broke, especially things that your wife needs to do her part.
What's wrong with that? They do the same thing with their cows to get their raw milk going. She's just another cow to him.
It is, free use is a thing this is just free use with bullshit rules made a couple thousand years ago by a cult of incel dudes.
Of course it's a fetish. I too have a fetish of living somewhere wet, green, with trees and stones around and stone+wood construction, with a bit of the traditional lifestyle in that general area. I mean, without the bad parts (sign language there is called "bride's language" cause a bride wasn't supposed to utter a word 3 months after marriage in olden days).
The fetish is about woods, mountains, silence and freedom.
The problem with these people is that they are trying to show some "perfect" life, the way everybody expects "perfect" (in their own opinion) workflow in computer stuff, "perfect" bodies in porn, "perfect" politicians (cancel culture is bad not cause rape\racism\theft is good, it's bad because figures carefully prepared to not even raise suspicions come on top, and these are usually not the most moral ones, just those with better advisors), "perfect" partners (you know these people who do lots of clubbing and dating and all even speak in the same voices in similar situations ; you divert from their ritual, they go anxious ; you say "ADHD", they say other people don't need to know that ; you have a hiding-from-society day when they want to go out, they feel badly hurt), "perfect" communication (one my friend has read somewhere that he has personal borders, but somehow missed that others have them too and saying "fuck off" to him is not violating his, while threatening to punch that other person is a violation), and so on.
OK, wrote too much. I just hate that glossy shit around us.
No, it's always about sex too. Women don't just spawn children from nothing, after all.
It's like findom combined with a breeding and submissive fetish.
The big problem with these situations is that's there's no "safeword". There's no out. She may have consented going into it, but there's no way for her to withdraw that consent.
You are assuming that her saying "no" would be respected. These are the people that don't believe that spousal rape is a thing.
Having kids and drinking milk all day sounds like my idea of hell, actually. I'm terrible with kids and my lactose intolerant bowels are protesting in advance..
What was the thing that was shared a couple days ago?
Nature wants 5/7 of your kids to make it and for you to die at 50 or something...
So people who want to live a traditional life are ok with that or they still want the benefits of society while not participating in it?
Nature wants 5/7 of your kids to make it and for you to die at 50 or something...
Lol that's low-key overly optimistic
50? The human body expires by 25 and there's no teeth left, also they should already be dead because of child mortality
Our lifespans are 60-70 years and have been even in those times.
Child mortality just lowered the average to around 30. A lot of babies died, but if you managed to get to your teens, it wouldn't be unreasonable by any standard to assume you'll get to 60-70.
Our "three score and ten".
"There's no teeth left"?
I mean unless they smoked a lot of crack or meth back then, idk where the teeth would've gone. Sure they had worse healthcare but probably also a healthier diet for their teeth.
In typical USA society, precarious access to healthcare due to exorbitant prices certainly helps keep the average population age down.
Nature doesn’t want anything. It’s not a person. It’s not even a thing. It’s just an idea.
Being forced to drink raw milk all day is part of an ancient execution method designed to kill you with your own diarrhea soaking you until you rot alive.
Unfortunately, this is true but they'll also mix it with honey and pour it on you as well. Bugs and rats will then start to eat you alive along with the bacteria. It's called Scaphism.
The veracity of that is a bit debatable though, it's allegedly a Persian practice and the only sources are Greek wartime propaganda intended to paint them as barbarians.
They thinks it's better for you or something because it's not processed. It's actually worse, can make you really sick if you get unlucky
Just inject the all natural, organic, unprocessed, 100% chemical free, snake venom into my veins.
It's what sweet little baby jeebus would have wanted.
It’s actually worse, can make you really sick if you get unlucky
The part that gets me is this...
You can get salmonella from unpasteurized milk. This happens a lot...especially considering America pasteurizes the majority of its milk...but when you hear of a milk-related outbreak a lot of the time it's from unpasteurized milk even though percent wise it's a small portion of our milk supply.
Anyway. A healthy adult might get through salmonella ok. BUT. Salmonella can completely fuck up a 3 year old's kidneys FOR LIFE. And it can be just as bad for the elderly.
These are both groups that have other people providing their food. If a 3 year old or child is given milk by mom and dad...well, they drink it. They have no choice in whether it's pasteurized or not. That's why government regulation of milk steps in, to make sure dumb people having babies don't harm their kids through their poor choices.
Giving unpasteurized milk to kids is similar to anti-vaxxers not vaccinating their kids. Basically, the parent involved has gone haywire over any smaller/imagined detriment or benefit, and chooses the action that could bring the MOST harm while thinking they are taking the route of least harm.
With raw milk, parents think the "nutrients" are better or something (even though...you know...we cook most of our food so MOST of our food is heat treated), and the food poisoning from possible salmonella minor/non-existent, when reality the nutrient profile isn't much different between pasteurized/unpasteurized milk, but the salmonella can kill the vulnerable or cripple their organs for life.
It all comes down to people being alive now in an era where we no longer have elders/grandparents telling others about how people used to DIE from these things.
People hear about getting cancer or dementia or whatever all the time, but haven't actually seen the old-school childhood illnesses from tainted milk or viruses or the like, so people make the wrong choice because it's not apparent from their own life experience how bad those illnesses were since they don't have family that talks about people they knew who got sick and died. The science is too abstract for them to internalize, but "choosing your own food" feels good and feels like you're in control...so people go down that route instead because they haven't seen the consequences of salmonella in their own family or in their friends (because there's a lot of barriers in places, including pasteurization of milk, to try to stop/prevent outbreaks.)
Worth adding that the current bird flu outbreak that's spilled over to dairy cows is another significant risk with raw milk that doesn't exist in pasteurized milk. Relevant source with some details on how it affects the poor farm cats
Some people get crazy about it.
The US in general had some way worse listeria outbreaks than Europe did in the window where pasteurization laws were first becoming things anyone was considering, so we start from a much more "your milk will be made safe" place.
As a result, raw milk, while still uncommon, can be sold in stores or other "normal" retail settings in most of Europe, and it's probably what will be used for cheese manufacturing.
In the US, it's only available via stores that sell it exclusively via club membership, and you might get raided by the USDA if they suspect you're trying to skirt the rules about membership. (Some stores have done hourly membership that comes with a free gallon of milk). Milk must also be pasteurized before being used for cheese, which creates a market for black market cheeses that can't be made with pasteurized milk but aren't cost effective to import past the various taxes we put on luxury cheese.
As a result most Americans are either far more wary of raw milk, because our laws were written before modern milking practices reduced sanitary concerns to what we accept for meat, or they develop a persecution complex and ascribe it quasi-magical powers, ironically often getting it from places that don't follow the sanitary practices that render it likely benign.
The thing to keep in mind when you compare the saga of turn of the century milk production between Europe and the US/Canada is the immigrant population. There just wasn't a market for milk in the urban setting in Europe because everyone knew it was deadly since the Roman times.
Compare that to New York, where they had a large influx of immigrants from small farming communities where children would often drink milk when young and they would buy milk that was sold out of unrefrigerated wagons coming from cows kept in confined spaces within the city. It was murderous, with tens of thousands of children's deaths in New York City alone. Of course this was the age of Cholera so the lives of people in cities came cheap.
The plain truth was adding formalin, which has no safe dose itself, was safer than drinking that shit the way they were selling it. North American cities quickly banned unpasteurized milk once the causal relationship was proven (despite the milkmen complaining).
•
It's really good if you want to catch an infection. My father in law had cows, would always boil the milk before consuming it because he didn't want to get sick.
It's what you want for cheese and butter making. Other than that, it's probably a reason there was a fair bit of kids that died before pasteurization.
When I was a kid, we still had milk cows so I probably dodged a bullet, and it wasn't that my parents were some back-to-the-earth whackos, it was just Canadian rural life in the 70s. I do remember milk tasting better then though.
I grew up milking cows and drinking raw milk as well. The reason we didn't get sick was because of the basic quality control we did as routine. In order for the pathogens to cause illness it needs three things: innoculum, time to grow and the right temperature to grow at.
The milk was immediately put into the fridge when we brought it in. It stayed in the fridge until it was used.
When you have 1-2 gallons coming into the house every day, you use a lot of milk and use it constantly. You don't put a gallon in the fridge and drink over 2-3 weeks. You have to consume, process or dump it because the fridge only holds so much and you only have so many jugs. We made butter and cheese every week at least. No gallon lasted in the fridge more than 5-6 days. Usually it was used in 2-3 days.
We knew the cow well. When she was sick or had an infection, we dumped the milk. We had to give ours antibiotics for mastitis a few times. We dumped the milk until the antibiotic was out of her system as well.
Any jug that smelled off was dumped. It wasn't a big deal since we had another gallon coming in a few hours.
Yah, you always milked off the first bit on the ground or to the cats. We sold a little bit to the dairy so we didn't end up wasting a lot, and everything went to the fridge quickly. On the other hand, I loved milk and on a hot day I've drank the better part of a gallon by myself so there wasn't much chance of it laying around. I did stop doing that when I realized how god-awful many calories whole milk has in it.
From what I can get from a quick google normal homogenized milk can lead to health problems (but don't get scared its not poison). Instead it's better to drink organic milk that's not homogenized.
And I would say let the farmers drink raw milk, they know the health of their cows best.
Edit: Of course milk should be pasteurised, it's the homogenisation that should be avoided. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_(chemistry)
Do you mean pasteurized? Homogenized just means that the milk is mixed so there isn't a fat layer.
Also it can be pasteurized and still organic. So I am suspicious of your understanding here.
He already said he “only did a quick google” so it’s fair to say there is no understanding. Love the vague “health problems” as the reason to avoid safe milk too lol.
I think the issue is that you felt the need to write anything at all. You admittedly know nothing about it and just gave confusing information based on a cursory internet search.
I think we'd be happy with "remotely relevant" or even "well researched". I'm not sure what you were going for.
Ok well you replied to a comment asking the benefits of raw milk, in a thread about raw milk. Your off topic comment is therefore misleading.
This has nothing to do with anything, but I know what homogenized means in the context of milk, but when I was a kid, I used to think it meant milk from different cows had been mixed. Like, that's why the called it homogenized. That they were, for some reason, mandated to make giant vats of cow-juice from millions of cows, and stir it together before they could sell it.
Homogenisation is done by forcing milk through a hole at high pressure this breaks up the fat into small particles.
So what is the problem with homogenization? You like big fat globs instead of small ones? You want fat to separate out for better health? It's just a mechanical treatment.
So, yes but actually no and it should be avoided for the reasons we have regulations about the sale of milk?
Thanks, guess I haven't listened to all of them, or maybe all the bastards blend together after a while
All I can see is that table outside covered with food and think about the HOURS of work that went into that. No thanks!
Maybe don't buy cheap chairs? Humans have had tables and chairs outside for as long as tables and chairs have existed.
the nuclear family and cisheteronormativity have been an absolute disaster for the human race
It's amazing how many of these "trad" people are completely clueless that an isolated nuclear farming family isn't traditional in the slightest.
Funny if true, but if true possibly also a HIPAA violation. Wouldnt want the doctor to get in trouble, should probably skip any o' them city folk inventions for the next 8 kids just to be safe.
Oof. Please don't make jokes that villainize HIPAA. We have few enough privacy laws, as it is.
HIPAA, applied properly, means her husband shouldn't have learned the details of her selected care, without her consent.
Edit: You were saying the same thing. I misunderstood.
What part of what i said villainized HIPAA?
Even if what you said is true, he just has to see the tweet for it to be a violation.
Data disclosure without authorization of the patient is a violation, and that doesn't matter who its disclosed to.
Source I work in medtech, i do yearly trainings on handling patient data, and its unlikely im related to any of them 😅
Edit: to clarify.. we are arguing about the doctor disclosing to the internet that this woman got an epidural, and whether or not that is a potential HIPAA violation right?
we are arguing about the doctor disclosing to the internet that this woman got an epidural, and whether or not that is a potential HIPAA violation right?
I missed that you meant if her doctor disclosed this. You're right. That's a wild HIPAA violation.