“In the first part of the 20th Century, advances in labour law and relations were won by our grandparents. Little things like a six and then a five day week, a 10 and then an 8 hour day, and gains in pay, the development of social security, and, at one point, the recognition and support of unions, which helped raise the employment standards for both unionized employees and those who weren't unionized.
Having lived through the Great Depression, knowing people who had experienced what life was like before the New Deal, they recognized that the Fat Cats - the oligarchy - were not going to give the people a fair deal unless the people organized and fought hard for it. And they did. People were imprisoned, people were killed by the police, but our brave forefathers and mothers fought for what was right. They had witnessed their own parents and grandparents poor and starving after a life time of hard toil, so they knew what the stakes were about. Then along came the entitled babyboomers, who in their rush to become millionaires have thrown it all away. The New Deal has been largely undone, and you can see for yourself how that has worked out for the average working person.
You will never regain what we had by attacking other working people, by trying to claw back the few remnants of a more just society that still exist. Instead, we should be demanding that you, too, have a pension.”
“In all fairness, there may be second rate designers, well, not really designers at all, but people who call themselves designers who, as you say, just point and tell people their ideas. I did come on a bit strong there - but my point is that the major designers, the really good ones who set trends, push boundaries, etc., they all know their craft and can sew.”
BadNewz730 on Apr 23, 2014 at 23:18:49
“You did not come on too strong. You were defending a position that could be seen as supporting sexism (which was not my point). It's tough balancing societal norms while not ignoring obvious changes in society (that only changed because it went against sexiest/racist/homophobic...etc stereotypes). I appreciate you defending your position to the point that it made me realize I was completely wrong. I have no problem being wrong (as long as it uncovers the truth). Continue to argue against the misinformed or (I pray is not me) the sexiest that are (falsely) reasoning their way to their (inaccurate) point of views.”
“I'm sorry, but assuming that one can become a major fashion designer without knowing how to sew is like assuming that one can become a famous chef without knowing a damn thing about cooking!
NO ONE becomes a major fashion designer without knowing how to sew and sew well. It's not just drawing pretty pictures! You have to understand fabric, drape, bias, pleats, button holes, zippers, etc. And celeb clothing lines are not "designer" in any way but marketing. Just tell someone what you want, eh? More like: just tell a real designer what their idea is, then the designer, with their knowledge of fabric and sewing, can create something the celeb then slaps their name on.
And no one starts out with a factory of sewers, either! Everyone who aspires to be a fashion designer knows how to sew. Here's an article that backs me up on that. In answering the question, why don't more men sew at home, the author notes: "If you follow fashion you know that the majority of the best-known designers are men. This has been true for a long time and probably comes out of the men’s tailoring tradition. There are more and more exceptions with every passing generation, but currently, at least, women’s (and men’s) fashion is still dominated by men." http://www.burdastyle.com/blog/why-more-men-dont-sew-and-does-it-matter
Or google "male designers sewing" and see lots of images of male designers at their sewing machines.”
BadNewz730 on Apr 22, 2014 at 22:03:15
“Well then I guess my anecdotal evidence added with my assumptions have led me astray. As a proud skeptic I have no problem admitting he was wrong. I apologize for my misinformation (that apparently was sadly faved a number of times).
“Okay, you keep changing your "point" whenever the questioner is able to poke holes in your assertions. Your original statement said nothing about whether it was sexist or not. You wrote: "Calling something feminine doesn't mean only women do it. It just means traditionally women did it." Putting aside the fact that of tailors, this type of gender assignment is, indeed, the very essence of sexism. It is because it prescribes what people do by their sex, not by their proclivities or talents. And we, as a culture, are so steeped in these ideas that we take them for granted, or, as you have done, jump in to defend someone when they are questioned on the practice, even when that questioning is done in a polite and non-attacking way.
Here's another perspective that might shed some light on why it is important that we question these assumptions and assertions, why we should strive to be more gender neutral, and why being more gender neutral is not an attack on men, but a way to liberate both men and women from constraining gender ideas. Here is Neil deGrasse Tyson answering someone who asked if the reason there are fewer women in science is "genetic." His answer is spot on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=035lOhkNbkM”
Natedogg265 on Apr 22, 2014 at 18:54:38
“The point is it's not sexist to describe a skill as feminine.”
“You know, I agree, there is much to be saddened and angry about today. But then, there has always been saddness, sickness, poverty, and, yes, even abortion and infanticide. Always.
Why does there have to be pain? It's a question we all ask at one point or another. Why pain, suffing, death? Some ask it as children and then push it out of mind, walling it safely out of feeling range, others feel it deeply and try to stuff it or avoid it with video games. Some pursue spiritual practices as a way to come to terms with this fundamentally existential question.
And what does this have to do with abortion?
For you, abortion is a fundamentally moral question - it kills a baby and so it is wrong. And franky, I too think it is a very serious thing, not at all a triffle to be done casually. I also agree there are other solutions to the problem of child abuse besides abortion, and besides, many "wanted" children are abused and neglected.
These are all rationalizations behind which are feelings of deep sadness at the sometimes harsh realities of life. We may not like it, I seriously doubt the women seeking abortions "like" it, but women will seek abortions. Restricting access or otherwise trying to stop them only leads to illegalities and unsafe practices. A girl of 14/15 just may not see it your way, and by having it your way, she may end up dead.”
“You don't really believe that. It's just a talking point to rationalize your own beliefs.
Women who elect to have abortions are making a very hard decision, one they agonize over. I have never had to have an abortion, and I am very thankful that I didn't have to make such a decision. I've known a few women who have had abortions, and while none of them regretted their decision, they have admitted that they often think about the child that might have been. It's not a decision women make lightly at all.
However, let's assume you're right and suppose their is a very small percentage of women who opt for abortions as casually as they might buy a new pair of shoes. Do you think these women should be having children?
I know several people who work with disadvantages people - people plagued by poverty, addiction, and mental health problems. This is anecdotal, of course, but there are women who get pregnant over and over because the hormones released let them feel "normal" or "good" while they're pregnant. Usually, these women think this is it, I'm cured, I'm going to be a great mom and be happy finally. More often than not, however, once the child is born and the hormones are gone, they replace into their drug dependencies and the children end-up in and out of family services.
And yet, no lefty I know has proposed that these women should have abortions. We just wish they used birthcontrol.”
“What are you talking about? Your statement is confusing. Pro lifers are those who want to curtail any access to abortion. But your next statement seems to imply that you mean those on the left are "pro lifers." Very confusing.
Putting that aside, I am a profoundly liberal person who comes from a relatively liberal family. I believe that women should have complete control over their bodies and should have access to birth control and, if need be, abortion.
On the other hand, I come from a large, very family oriented family. We have had our share of accidental pregnancies. At no time was anyone expected to have an abortion, and in several cases, the choice to have children by young and single women in my family has been made. And those moms have needed our support over the years, which was freely and gladly provided. Family is family.
Those of us on the left support public safety nets for women who don't have the kind of family I have, while the right, through the policies they push, clearly do not. They are all for forcing a women to have a baby she doesn't feel up to having, but once that child is born, they seem to feel no responsibility. Instead, they blame the woman for having the child.
This may be what you were trying to say. I just don't understand what you mean by the left is "callous."”
Dina4242 on Apr 4, 2014 at 11:47:05
loveis22984 on Apr 4, 2014 at 08:05:52
“look at all the posters angry that I shared my story about being happy I didn't give in to the urge to terminate my pregnancy and are happy to say they know many people that had abortions and didn't give it a second thought in life. What would you call that. The left is intent on pushing the notion that abortions are no big deal they want people to believe that the fetus is not a child because it is not yet born and now people are actually claiming fetuses are not even alive. if i had said i had an abortion, i would have been getting congratulations. There is no way this is good for society.”
“Yes! Exactly. I was working as managing editor for a scholarly publication when I discovered audio, and besides the exhaustion mentioned above, I also suffered from eye fatigue from my professional reading - I can recall many times slamming a book shut because the words were shaking on the page (my eyes were obviously tired and tracking poorly). Most uncomfortable feelling.
Around the same time I discovered audiobooks, my son was diagnosed as having a severe eye tracking problem, which explained why he was making no progress with reading, despite having a very large vocabulary. I read to him every day for years, and he had expressed an interest in learning to read quite young, but despite regular eye checks, we didn't find out about the tracking until he was six. Audiobooks to the rescue! I was so fortunate, as I had a ton of airmiles at the time and they were offering IPods. So we both got an IPod and I loaded his up with books. Not long after, he said something that still warms my heart: "Mom, I have discovered that I love literature." :)
If you're interested, check out Post Hypnotic Press - www.posthypnoticpress.com - (follow us on Twitter and Facebook, too). Here is an introductory coupon which will give you 50% off anything you order (downloads, MP3 and regular CDs available). You enter it at check-out, but it will only work one time per customer: GEKQXWBRN3J4.”
“That's just unfair. If you can only afford cheap, processed food, you tend to end-up obese. It cost a lot more to buy fresh produce and better quality food, so low income people eat stuff that is cheaper, i.e. processed food which is low in nutrients and high in calories. Ironically, this food also creates health problems which make it harder for people to work. It's a vicious cycle.”
“I was glued to the TV set back when Carl Sagan's Cosmo aired, and I'm absolutely loving this one, too!
Can't resist mentioning a book here, although it is only tangentially related to this article. Check out Robert Minor's book, "When Religion is an Addiction" which:
"not only puts the political activities of the right-wing in a new perspective, but explains how liberal responses have often enabled religious addiction to thrive. Dr. Minor applies contemporary understandings of addictions to the extreme Christian right-wing in the United States and concludes that for them religion is functioning as a process addiction. ... The emotional "high" of righteousness functions to eliminate the addicts' sense of personal responsibility for their teachings, their actions, and their actions' painful toll on other human beings. ... And the current right-wing obsession with political campaigns and victories is the even stronger fix the addiction demands to cover growing fears of failure. Too often the responses of liberals have been like those of enablers in an addict's family who through their reactions prevent the addict from hitting bottom. Arguing about religion, for example, only promotes the addiction. In the final chapter Dr. Minor reveals a non-enabling way to respond to those people for whom religion functions as an addiction."
“You're most welcome! If you buy directly from Post Hypnotic Press, they offer a first time customer coupon - 50% OFF as many audiobooks as you wish to purchase (downloads, MP3 or regular CDs). It's only good for one use per customer, though. Enter GEKQXWBRN3J4 at check-out. www.posthypnoticpress.com”
“If you find stories of divorce interesting, you'll love Dana Adam Shapiro's audiobook, "You Can Be Right (Or You Can Be Married)." Looking for answers to his own relationship problems and figuring that we learn best from our mistakes, Shapiro set-out across America to interview people about their worst divorce experiences. The result is this highly entertaining and frankly voyeuristic book. As one amazon customer put it:
"Wow! I can not say that I was surprised by the book, but surprised by the fact that I was hanging tightly to every story and every word! Dana Shapiro is funny, witty and downright honest. ... It is a MUST read for any couple looking to improve upon their own relationship and to remind them of what they need to do to stay active and present in their relationship."
Listen to a sample (this is the interview with Jim - warning, adult content).
Mar 17, 2014 at 02:27:51
“If you are going to enjoy the kind of fame she's courting, the music industry pretty much demands it. It's not enough to be talented and just sing, if it were, we would have heard of her before not after she reinvented herself as performance artist - pop diva.”
“Throwing the word ideologue around is a lazy and inadquate.
Robert, most of our generation was exposed to Playboy/Hustler, but it wasn't as accessible or widely used, and hard core was a fringe part of a sub-culture. Now, as Grinling states, it is ubiquitous and children aren't seeing pictures of naked women, they are seeing women bound, gagged, gang-banged, raped, etc. And women are depicted as "wanting" it, enjoying their degradation.
As Megan asserts, porn is only a part of the problem - the media continually objectifies women. However, as pornography has become more ubiquitous, so too have those depictions become more misogynist and sexual. Our pornified culture attests to the pernicious effects of the porn industry. Hell, a whole generation of women have embraced shaving their pubic hair in order to emulate porn - do you need a clearer indication of the effect of porn on our culture? especially when you consider that shaving one's pubs is both uncomfortable and unhealthy? (http://www.geekosystem.com/hazards-of-pubic-shaving/)
Finally, Robert, I agree that parents must talk to their kids about pornography. But just explaining that it is "fantasy" is rather inadequate. Discussions need to stretch to what is and isn't a healthy attitude toward sex, what respect looks like, what consent is and isn't, etc. We need to let our girls know that they don't need to objectify themselves to be accepted and sexual, and boys know that they don't have to objectify women to be real men.”
wanderer12 on Mar 14, 2014 at 19:55:49
“No the word ideologue is used to show that a person is viewing things through a very specific lens. And you must not have looked at porn in the day because there was plenty of bound, gagged, face shots........The depictions are more professional but not a lot different over the years. On pubic hair I agree and it is a point I have made in several posts on HP. That has impacted men as well. I think "healthy" is in the eyes of the person involved in it. I find the D&S crowd strange but that is their thing. Some people for years have and still do find homosexuality "unhealthy". All of which is different from consent. And people who are waiting for men to not see women in a sexual light, ideology code word objectify, or who think they can change that part of masculine nature have a very long wait. Or the smart boy will do what we have always do, nod, say sure and go right back to being what we are not what some group with a specific perspective wants us to be or feel.”
“Clearly, the answer to that is no! I'm Canadian, and I do not know a single Canadian who would toss out our system for what you have. No thank you! I pay less per year for a family of three for health care insurance than many US citizens were paying for one month for themselves alone! Your new system begins to address that, but you still pay way more per person than we do.”
“Sadly, you make a good point, especially about long posts and big words. It is a failing for many of us on the left - we want to explain, we want to reason, and these are methods that get us nowhere! Now, short, pithy, emotionally charged statements, regardless of how grounded in fact they are, they work wonders. But that feels so manipulative and false to most on the left. It's a real dilema for some of us. :)”
“Yeah, and the average Canadian get's a hell of a bang for our tax buck, too.
There was a time when Americans recognized that everyone paying a fair share of their income in taxes supported a great society for all. It made your schools better, your communities more liveable, it fueled job creation, etc. etc. Now, you squawk and squawk about "taxes" while ignoring the fact that your incomes are falling far behind and many are under-employed or have no jobs at all because you've allowed under-taxed corporations to ship your jobs overseas.
The very rich have managed to highjack the entire system (you can thank big daddy Reagan for that, as he ushered in the neo-con era and championed the likes of Milton Friedman and his Robber Baron capitalism). And they have the likes you as foot-soldiers out there fighting taxation, especially taxing the rich, while not understanding any of the other complicated issues you face. So, you stick to that one talking point that appeals to your personal greed and self-centerdness.
The result? The rich and corporations pay diddly squat in tax and your whole society is going down the toilet. Which suits the rich fine - an under-employed, uneducated, self-centered populace is easy to manipulate. So keep it up, fight the good fight for the rich and your corporate masters!”
“First of all, who cares when the guy came out or whether everyone already knew. Good for him for being openly gay and good for the USA for sending openly gay athletes to Sochi. Personally, I would have preferred the entire world to boycott the Sochi Olympics - that would have sent a strong message. But too much principal at stake for principle to stand - such is the state of our sick society, money trumps everything.”
dwes09 on Dec 19, 2013 at 16:24:29
“The idea of boycotting the Berlin Olympics prior to WW II was considered. Ultimately going, and doing well (especially medals won buy blacks and others deemed "inferior races") was a stronger and more positive statement. Plus there were winning athletes who (by dint of being "aryn") were invited to meet Hitler and declined. That was also great, as it pissed him off and he could do nothing.”
parfort on Dec 19, 2013 at 16:16:20
“If you got up at 4am every day and trained for the last four years, you wouldn't say that. I'm glad it's not your decision.”