AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2009 > January > 02 > Entry
What is the single biggest issue facing women in 2009?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The single biggest issue facing women in 2009? Probably the same issue that most concerned women in 1929—ain’t nostalgia grand?
This time around, our plummeting economy has affected a working world filled with women as well as men, and there wasn’t anyone during the holidays who wouldn’t have picked job security over a new Guitar Hero waiting for them under the tree. (Well, maybe Guitar Hero is a bad example — it rocks! But you get the idea.)
Tough times all over, yet women enter this troubling financial cycle already behind the guys. Over a quarter of all U.S. households are headed by a woman, and those families earn and save less than all other households. In addition, single women have a median net worth that is about a third of the $93,000 national average.
Given these added challenges, can women keep up with their bills? Maybe, but it’s their long-term health that seems to be falling by the wayside.
The American Psychological Association conducted a stress survey last summer which showed than more women than men (84 percent to 75 percent) expressed fears about the economy, with new physiological and emotional symptoms attending that worry — and that was before the Dow played its own swan song.
It gets worse: moms are cutting back on health care, both for themselves and their families, right as the added stress makes them ripe for the number-one killer of women, heart disease.
Riding somewhat to the rescue is a solution right out of the Depression-era playbook; building jobs by building bridges and roads. Yet as Linda Hirshman wrote recently in the New York Times, women only make up 9 percent of the work force in construction, and few are trained in alternative energy, the other major public works job source. She points out that growth in education and child care jobs, also promised by this administration, would put many more women back on the payroll.
I understand the grumbling about turning into the Socialist States of America — really, I do. But desperate times call for inclusive measures. I hope that when the new administration creates a plan of attack for Depression 2.0, they remember that women need jobs too, for very health of our nation. Wouldn’t that rock?
Rebuttal
The economy is the most important issue for women, but Obama’s New Deal 2.0 approach risks making it worse, not better! Moreover, although Andy sincerely believes Obama’s massive public-works stimulus package can be used to create jobs for women, it will most likely do the reverse.
Primarily because so many businesses and households are struggling, finding the money to pay for the necessary massive new taxes will sabotage the very private sector engine than can power us out of a recession. And women will suffer most: not only do they have less margin (as Andy notes), but women are far more likely than men to be the independent contractors or part-time employees who are first to go when a company is forced to cut costs.
Too many people don’t understand that businesses paying new taxes means cutting costs elsewhere — especially for the small businesses who employ half of all workers. Now, having spent years working on Capitol Hill and for the Fed, I have a lifelong respect for public servants. But it’s just a reality that most have little or no private-sector experience. If our incoming president had ever run a business there is no way he’d propose massive government works as a means of “stimulating” the economy. He might still propose limited public works in specific areas but would more likely rely on tax cuts to jump-start private business and promote hiring.
Instead, as Cesar Conda explained in an excellent October 2008 National Review article, Obama’s tax hikes — such as for the “stimulus package” — stand to most hurt the small business sector that creates 75 percent of our new jobs.
I know this all too well. As a small business owner, I employ eight terrific part-time women — and this year I also have to somehow find an extra $10,000 for the poorly designed Alternative Minimium Tax that is increasingly pouncing on average Americans like me. Since, like most business owners, I have no extra cash lying around, I have no choice but to lay off one of my staff and use what should have been her salary to pay that tax increase.
That stark, depressing, unintended effect will be repeated endlessly under the “stimulus package” — and is the reality that big-government proponents simply do not understand.
Services »
Comments
By Bruno
January 2, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this
Too many people don’t understand that businesses paying new taxes means cutting costs elsewhere — especially for the small businesses who employ half of all workers.
“Too many people” = Obama voters, who are all for a radical expansion of government, as long as someone else is picking up the tab. Hopefully one day they will realize that, for better or worse, we’re all in this thing together. Higher taxes hurt everyone, not just the “rich”.
By Gale
January 2, 2009 3:33 PM | Link to this
So, they finally opened the comments. You are completely right, Bruno, and Shaunti. And for the record, I agree with Andrea too, except that I don’t think government spending is the cure. Women are facing the same big issue men are, the economy problems. Squeezing budgets is a problem that hits women whether they they do not work, they are a second salary, or if they are the head of household. When the budget is squeezed, something has to give somewhere.
By The Other Jack
January 4, 2009 9:28 AM | Link to this
Standard liberal vs conservative argument: Andrea is talking about hopes and dreams of a wonderful world where everyone is happy, wealthy and wise and Shaunti is talking about the very real possibility of laying someone off because of taxes taking money from hard working, good people and giving it to the ruling party’s voting block.
No big deal. Libs with their heads in the clouds ( and up their a^s) and conservatives just trying to make payroll.
By USinUK
January 5, 2009 8:37 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Standard liberal vs conservative argument: Andrea is talking about hopes and dreams of a wonderful world where everyone is happy, wealthy and wise and Shaunti is talking about the very real possibility of laying someone off because of taxes taking money from hard working, good people and giving it to the ruling party’s voting block.
ah, yes. starting off the year with your tired bromides. plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
all Andy is saying is that, when crafting the economic stimulus package, be sure to consider the wimmen folk - be sure to go beyond just male-dominated construction jobs and include sectors that employ women (2008 saw the first dip in working women of more than 2%).
the $$$ is going to be spent (more to the point - the $$$ desperately NEEDS to be spent) - we’d just like to make sure that ALL family breadwinners benefit from the stimulus, not just the XY-enabled.
By Gale
January 5, 2009 9:52 AM | Link to this
It appears, in the absense of other ideas, that the bad economy and its symptoms are the biggest problem for women. We have differing opinions about what the root cause is (if there is a root cause) and how to fix it. As with most problems, it is hard to create a solution if you are not sure what the problem is.
To a large extent, I think greed led us here. How does a capitalist society deal with greed without crippling the capitalist ideals? Too much regulation will stiffle free enterprise. Not enough regulation will… Well, it will bring us where we are now. Is there a way to regulate business so it remains free and open, but still protect society from unrestrained greed? (Just thinking out loud here.)
By Gandalf, the White!
January 5, 2009 10:05 AM | Link to this
Once again EXPAT: Who pays taxes? Only one correct answer here…CONSUMERS! Tax a corporation, they pass tax along to, yes, you guessed it! Consumers!! So tax away, but know that what ever you tax corporations will be paid for (in higher cost of goods) by the consumer. Fair tax. org is where you need to spend a bit of time exploring this concept. Maybe you will see the light, maybe you will choose to remain in darkness. The choice is only yours to make. Remember….who pays taxes? Consumers! YEAH! we have made progress in this new year already! Barry WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES either directly or indirectly and it won’t positively affect the economy. Have a nice year!
By USinUK
January 5, 2009 10:09 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Too much regulation will stiffle free enterprise. Not enough regulation will… Well, it will bring us where we are now. Is there a way to regulate business so it remains free and open, but still protect society from unrestrained greed?
Great question - but I think there is one weakness in your opening gambit - let’s not confuse regulation with taxation. I think most people such as Shaunti, in her post above, would say that taxation is the bigger problem on most entrepeneurs than regulation.
And, yes, I do agree that excessive taxation does make some business owners say “why bother”. Please note - my emphasis is on excessive. Businesses great and small use government services and should pay for them just like individuals.
However, regulation - especially in regards to the financial foundation of the economy - is not only important, it is essential. There will always be financial entrepeneurs who create new ways to use money to make money - but we need to ensure that our economy is built on a strong, solid foundation - not one created out of smoke and mirrors.
By USinUK
January 5, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this
GTW -
Fair tax. org is where you need to spend a bit of time exploring this concept.
as I’ve stated in the past - you want to scrap our current nightmare of a tax system and institute a flat tax, I’ll be the first to stand up and applaud. heck, I’ll even write a thank-you note.
the so-called “fair tax” is nothing but VAT gussied up and gone to town. and, let me tell you - not only is the VAT a regressive tax on the poor, it is also a night-frickin-mare for a lot of service businesses to institute, as well.
lastly, it is the WORST tax you can use for budgeting - basing your spending on the very volatile consumer spending is my personal #1 worst idea for fiscal governance.
YMMV
By Gandalf, the White!
January 5, 2009 10:29 AM | Link to this
Kinda like VAT, only different… ;-)
By Gale
January 5, 2009 11:02 AM | Link to this
OK, since we want to focus on taxes (Tis the Season), budgeting based on income tax and real estate tax is also a nightmare in our current economy, as many states and municipalities are learning. Personally, I think I would perfer to be taxed on what I spend. I can control that, to some extent. My earlier post was trying to identify a cure to the problem. I don’t think taxes are a cure. I think that as a solution, it is just pushing the trash around the dump. Moving it over there will not make it go away. We need something transformative. That will take a better understanding of the problem than we appear to have now. I don’t expect politicians to agree. But I would feel a lot better if economists would agree.
By E. Wood
January 5, 2009 11:17 AM | Link to this
I hate to burst Bruno and Shaunti’s bubbles but the Alternative Minimum Tax came into existence in 1969 and was expanded under Reagan, a Republican, where it began to first seriously impact small business owners and families. Under Obama small business owners will pay FEWER taxes, not more, a fact that I am quite sure Shaunti is aware of. Attempting to connect the Alternative Minimum Tax to Obama, who isn’t in office yet, is disingenuous at best.
By USinUK
January 5, 2009 11:18 AM | Link to this
Gale-
Personally, I think I would perfer to be taxed on what I spend. I can control that, to some extent.
precisely my point - YOU can control it, making it hard for GOVERNMENT to do budget projections. Income tax is usually much easier to project (unless, of course, we go through a huge recession and vast swaths of people lose their jobs)
as for property taxes - I totally agree that states and municipalities are learning that revenue stream isn’t as secure as they once thought.
flat tax - whatever %%% folks can agree on - no deductions. state and fed. taxes taken at source. save time, save effort, save your hairline.
By USinUK
January 5, 2009 11:25 AM | Link to this
… and just for you GtG -
Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) — President-elect Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package will include hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax breaks for individuals and businesses, according to a transition official and Democratic aides.
http://www. bloomberg. com/ apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a4aKXHku_ULE&refer=us
The plan would attempt to boost consumer demand by spending $140 billion on tax breaks worth $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples, according to a House Democratic aide. The change would come by altering tax-withholding rules, rather than through a rebate check as with the previous stimulus plan enacted last year, so that workers would see an immediate increase in their take-home pay.
By USinUK
January 5, 2009 11:48 AM | Link to this
E Wood -
I hate to burst Bruno and Shaunti’s bubbles but the Alternative Minimum Tax came into existence in 1969 and was expanded under Reagan
well stated, E
and the CBO has been sounding the alarm for the last 4 years:
“Over the coming decade, a growing number of taxpayers will become liable for the AMT. In 2010, if nothing is changed, one in five taxpayers will have AMT liability and nearly every married taxpayer with income between $100,000 and $500,000 will owe the alternative tax. Rather than affecting only high-income taxpayers who would otherwise pay no tax, the AMT has extended its reach to many upper-middle-income households. As an increasing number of taxpayers incur the AMT, pressures to reduce or eliminate the tax are likely to grow.”
here’s some additional info from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:
http://www. cbpp.org/ 2-14-07tax.htm
By American Woman
January 5, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this
Hahaha! TAXES? Seriously? Wow…. Thanks for illuminating my biggest issue for me. You really understand women, don’t you? HAHAHAHA!
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 12:03 PM | Link to this
I hate to burst Bruno and Shaunti’s bubbles but the Alternative Minimum Tax came into existence in 1969 and was expanded under Reagan, a Republican, where it began to first seriously impact small business owners and families.
E. Wood—Please show me where in my post I mentioned the Alternative Minimum Tax. My statement that taxes are going up is based on Obama’s campaign pledge to add 500,000 + new government jobs along with a host of give-away programs such as “free” college tuition. New spending = new taxes, plain and simple, regardless of who is paying them.
Under Obama small business owners will pay FEWER taxes, not more, a fact that I am quite sure Shaunti is aware of.
That will remain to be seen. All of the Obama voters fell hook-line-and-sinker to his pledge to reduce taxes for 95% of all taxpayers. Considering all of the new spending proposals, I just don’t see how that is possible. Even if it is true, I don’t think it’s fair to drastically raise taxes on the remaining 5%.
Attempting to connect the Alternative Minimum Tax to Obama, who isn’t in office yet, is disingenuous at best.
No more disingenous than connecting the AMT to me, when I never mentioned it.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 12:09 PM | Link to this
Hahaha! TAXES? Seriously? Wow…. Thanks for illuminating my biggest issue for me. You really understand women, don’t you? HAHAHAHA!
What is your biggest concern, AW, if it isn’t the economy?? Considering the fact that you-know-what always rolls downhill, I thought that Andrea’s and Shaunti’s focus on the economy as a “woman’s issue” was fairly astute.
By USinUK
January 5, 2009 12:13 PM | Link to this
Bruno - please see Bloomberg link above.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
Did anyone else notice that both Andrea’s and Shaunti’s columns contain a misspelling this week?? ; > }
By Archie
January 5, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this
And, yes, I do agree that excessive taxation does make some business owners say “why bother”. Please note - my emphasis is on excessive. Businesses great and small use government services and should pay for them just like individuals. Those are very good points, USinUK, very good points and I wish those points could be made to my governor here in South Carolina as he is a stupid and deceptive man. We don’t collect enough unemployment tax from business’s here in SC so like other states we run out of money to pay unemployment benefits and our stupid governor threatened not to sign the loan needed to pay for unemployment benefits because he doesn’t want to do what really needs to be done. Women have all kinds of issues just as men do but I think I agree way more with Andrea on this topic.
One more thing on my stupid governor as there are several guys here that are republicans that call him much worse names than I do because they know the man doesn’t understand most unemployment offices do things because they are mandated by federal law. The governor,Mark Sanford, asks for data he knows the state unemployment agency doesn’t collect and has never collected yet when going before the public he talks as if he was stiffed on said information and he generalizes using the typical republican party lines about taxing small business. My thing is republican legislators here can’t stand him so who does he appeal to, the general public that doesn’t really know what’s going on. Women and I say women because of the blog’s title, please read up on state issues because politicians count on you not knowing details and they just spout generalities without giving details. Anyway I think USinUk made a good point that too many politicians are afraid to make and it made think about what I have been going thru for the last week.
By USinUK
January 5, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
Considering the fact that you-know-what always rolls downhill
what? cheese? clumsy moles? snowballs? ;-)
hope you had a great holiday!!
By Lyrazel
January 5, 2009 12:24 PM | Link to this
Why do people believe women cannot do construction jobs and why does the opinion of ONE writer in NYC prove the argument that women would not do jobs in green energy fields? Its these sex-bias articles that perceive women as failures in this country. If women actually want equality they must stop listening to drivel and learn to drive a forklift or learn how to install solar panels, roofing tile and a host of jobs women can do! Hey, women have the gumption and strength to compete as an equal! While I understand one of the best ways to get women into work would be to federalize child care by offering one of the few careers offered for women with low education levels it limits women to the same old same old traditional woman’s role! Is changing traditional prejudicial roles so abhorrent to freelance writers in America?
And what’s this crap about taxes? You want National Health care you WILL pay more taxes! You want to create more jobs in your state by having back to work programs you WILL pay more taxes. Any stimulus plan comes with a guarantee of higher taxes. Who does not get that? Promises politicians make on the campaign trail fall far from reality!
While I feel for Shaunti and her 8 part timers—I just feel prior planning prevents poor performance. First, she has 8 part-timers—meaning none of them probably receive any insurance, there is no advancement or job security, because she doles out to so many—(never before have I heard a moderately published freelance writer to employ 8 people) none of those women will actually be able to call it living wage. She is doing a wall-mart, i.e., hire as many people for (actually less than) minimum wage by employing them part time/temp with no benefits or advancements or job securitty. My guess is her inability to calculate expenses results in her needing to lay off one of her 8 (prior planning, Shaunti, tisk tisk). Now if she laid off 4 she could possibly provide: insurance, full time wages, child-care benefits to the remaining 4—instead of keeping 8 at poverty levels—which is precisely what is happening to women across America at corporations like Wal-Mart.
So, how many women can work on a highway road crew? Well, even now there are many—some work as dispatchers, some work driving truck, some are flagmen and some are the boss of the plant! Myths made by NYC Times freelancers should never be taken on as FACT without the writer actually understanding there are a multitude of jobs women can do in non-traditional fields! 9% is a bogus calculation!
By American Woman
January 5, 2009 12:24 PM | Link to this
The economy is of serious concern to me, but I don’t think that our current collective economic woes were CAUSED by taxes. Tax cuts, not increases, (during wartime no less) have been the rule of the day for several years now. According to what I’ve read, tax cuts for the top tiers and for big corporations have been in place while the overall economy has spiraled downward. I see no evidence that “trickle down” economics works for the majority of Americans, although it does seem to work well for a few. Perhaps those few for whom it has been working will suddenly decide to reverse this trend and hire millions of Americans at a decent wage with benefits? Hmmm… I guess it’s possible. BTW, CNN is reporting right now that Obama is pushing for $3 Billion in tax cuts. But what do they know?
You’re right, though. The “you-know-what” rolls downhill. Profits clearly do NOT.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this
Bruno - please see Bloomberg link above.
USinUK—I looked through the link you provided, but, once again, it comes down to two people looking at the same set of “facts” and drawing different conclusions. I’m well aware that Obama is promising a reduction in taxes (at least initially) to help stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, this remains at odds with his proposals to drastically increase government spending. If deficit spending under Bush is “evil”, why is it all of a sudden good economic plicy under Obama??
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this
hope you had a great holiday!!
Thanks, USinUK. Unfortunately the festivities were dampened this year by the sudden passing of my best friend’s mother a few days ago. She was like a second mom to me. I’m glad that I was able to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with her. I guess we never know when our “last Christmas” is going to be with someone.
By JustaJew
January 5, 2009 12:40 PM | Link to this
If deficit spending under Bush is “evil”, why is it all of a sudden good economic plicy under Obama??
because, IMHO, deficit spending now will pay dividends in the future. I think this Obama plan is a short-term solution for our economic woes. You can debate the eventual effectiveness of this plan but I don’t think it’s a long-term strategy. At least, I hope it isn’t.
By Mara
January 5, 2009 12:55 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel, I was going to copy/paste the pertinent part of your comment, but it was ALL good. Yes, women (as a whole) need to quit buying into the idea that we don’t do “manual labor” other than the traditional labor like maid, cook, waitress, etc. It isn’t like construction is all shovels, hammers and saws these days (although I have done punch-out, trim installation, drywall, painting etc and it ain’t that tough…) If you aren’t into the ‘hands on’ part of construction, heavy equipment operation, logistics planning, drafting-archatecture, surveying, etc etc etc are well within our physical abilities.
You hit it on the head when you said “If women actually want equality they must stop listening to drivel and learn to drive a forklift or learn how to install solar panels, roofing tile and a host of jobs women can do!”
to the group, regarding the Fair Tax - before you get the idea that the FT is just a VIN and regressive to the poor, please, PLEASE read Boortz’ books “The Fair Tax” as well as the follow-up “Fair Tax: The Truth: Answering the Critics”. I honestly held the same misconceptions about the idea until I studied it myself. Yes, there are a few issues we might want to reconsider, but it isn’t a run-of-the-mill VIN or sales tax. It is definitely an idea that deserves a fair, open debate.
Can’t stay, gotta clear up all the holiday holdovers on my desk. :^( Just grabbing a bite of lunch and thought I’d drop in. Later.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 1:09 PM | Link to this
So, how many women can work on a highway road crew? Well, even now there are many—some work as dispatchers, some work driving truck, some are flagmen and some are the boss of the plant! Myths made by NYC Times freelancers should never be taken on as FACT without the writer actually understanding there are a multitude of jobs women can do in non-traditional fields! 9% is a bogus calculation!
The 9% figure sounds reasonable to me, Lyrazel, based on the physiological differences between men and women along with the differing interest levels in performing construction work. In the same way, it makes sense to me that the teaching and nursing professions are dominated by women. As a man, should I be indignant that men are “under-represented” in those fields??
But desperate times call for inclusive measures. I hope that when the new administration creates a plan of attack for Depression 2.0, they remember that women need jobs too, for very health of our nation.
To make Andy happy, maybe we need to attach gender-specific quotas to any new federal jobs created. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
By Gale
January 5, 2009 1:16 PM | Link to this
USinUK, I am generally in favor of a flat (income) tax. There are some problems with it, of course. I’d lose the deductions from my property tax and mortgage interest; both are serious concerns to me and I would want to be sure I came out at least even in the bargain. Secondly, people with no income would still pay no tax. I would like to think that would at least mean they would also not receive a tax credit for money they did not earn.
I think American Woman brings up a good point. Many of the part time jobs in the country are held by women. Most of those part time jobs have no benefits attached. Squeezing them even more in this economy when they have no other job to go to is a serious problem for women.
It is still, however, part of the bigger problem, the economy. I would like to see new spending offset by reducing unnecessary spending in the government. We do not need any more bridges to nowhere. We do not need any more buildings in Iraq that cost more than 10 times the cost that would be tolerated in the private sector. We need more people watching the government checkbook.
By Gale
January 5, 2009 1:31 PM | Link to this
Given the actual work I see most construction crews doing, road work is well within the capabilities of most women. Building construction, though, I don’t know. I see guys carrying beams and sheets of drywall. I guess I could do that, but it looks like heavy work. I think muscles might rule there. On the finish side, though, I see no reason why women would not be able to do electrical and plumbing work. There have been programs to attempt to train women for these jobs. There may still be. Women sometimes have faced crew pressure from machos on the job. Probably one of the biggest impediment to women entering those fields is a societal gender-basis for jobs.
I think we are seeing some changes. More men are teaching lower grades. More men become nurses. (Maybe they used to be afraid of the white skirt and funny hats.) I don’t think schools restrict girls from shop classes anymore. But gender bias still starts at home. If your son wanted to take a sewing class, what would you think? If your daughter wanted to take shop and be a plumber? What then.
Still, all that is just a side note to this topic. I don’t think gender bias for employment is the biggest problem facing women this year.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 1:33 PM | Link to this
According to what I’ve read, tax cuts for the top tiers and for big corporations have been in place while the overall economy has spiraled downward.
Sorry, AW, but under Bush, EVERY American received a tax break. Including you. Your “class warfare” arguments are wearing thin.
because, IMHO, deficit spending now will pay dividends in the future. I think this Obama plan is a short-term solution for our economic woes. You can debate the eventual effectiveness of this plan but I don’t think it’s a long-term strategy. At least, I hope it isn’t.
I got it, JJ. When Bush reduces taxes, it’s a bad thing. When Obama lowers taxes, it’s a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this
And what’s this crap about taxes? You want National Health care you WILL pay more taxes! You want to create more jobs in your state by having back to work programs you WILL pay more taxes. Any stimulus plan comes with a guarantee of higher taxes. Who does not get that? Promises politicians make on the campaign trail fall far from reality!
No worries, Lyrazel—The “rich” are going to pay for all of these new proposals. Just ask any Obama voter.
By American Woman
January 5, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this
In the same way, it makes sense to me that the teaching and nursing professions are dominated by women. — HAHAHAHA! Of course it does, Dear.
Gale, yes, the lack of benefits and the quality of the available jobs is a serious concern for all of us. As a homeowner and parent, trying to keep up with the rising costs of almost everything is a serious concern. Since the income taxes on my stagnant salary (which I am reluctant to abandon for the American entrepreneurial dream due to prohibitive health insurance costs) are not increasing, I find the squawking about potential tax increases for the rich to be miles away from the very real issues I face every month. Just one example: the medical bills that keep rolling in for charges my expensive PPO plan does not cover. Just when you think you’re done paying for something, another one rolls in. Just getting caught up seems like the impossible dream.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 2:13 PM | Link to this
HAHAHAHA! Of course it does, Dear.
So, have we reached the level of political correctness in our society that it is taboo to speak of different physiological abilities and differing interest levels in terms of career choices?
I admire and support the “can-do” attitude that most of you ladies here espouse, but think that you are ignoring basic human nature when you think something is “wrong” when confronted with the fact that few women choose a career as a construction worker.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 2:21 PM | Link to this
On a lighter topic, did anyone see VH1’s “Hundred Greatest Hard Rock Songs” over the holiday? They did a good job by including most of the songs you would expect to see on such a list (“Breaking the Law” by Judas Priest, “Ace of Spades” by Motorhead, etc), but also had some real laughers. For example, at #67 was ZZ Top’s “Tush”. Ok, fair enough. Then, for #66, they chose “The Final Countdown” by an 80s throw-away band called “Europe”. Total drek.
By Lyrazel
January 5, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this
Thanks Mara, I do try.
Bruno, in these back to work incentive programs (if they actually DO happen and I actually doubt it) would reasonably conclude if there is TAX $ doled out the work opportunities should be shared. If you are training to put in solar panels why just train men? Why can’t new inductees in new fields include women? Why can’t more men learn nursing? Limited thinking combined with prejudice, sexism and bias does not help problems get solved and we have more nay-sayers in America than ever! I did read the article in the NYTimes prior to my commenting and maybe that’s what is gnawing my craw a bit. The writer (a woman) thinks incentive programs for job skill building that women should be channeled into childcare and teaching (two of the lowest paid fields) thus continues the same problem. Her 9% omits MANY jobs women already do in construction, from architects to electricians…to contractors 9% not just road crew work—its all labor—thus I disagree with that dismal low figure. When I was in the hospital in Aug. six of my resident doctors were women (of 8), three of my RNs were male & 1 CRN was male. Change IS happening.
By Jack
January 5, 2009 2:29 PM | Link to this
Hey Dog. The fair tax would be a wonderful thing but it will never happen unless there is a revolution. The sheeple of this country will never revolt, they don’t have the b-lls. As far as women doing men’s jobs, I cannot think of one that a woman cannot do but many that they would not want to do.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 2:39 PM | Link to this
If you are training to put in solar panels why just train men? Why can’t new inductees in new fields include women? Why can’t more men learn nursing? Limited thinking combined with prejudice, sexism and bias does not help problems get solved and we have more nay-sayers in America than ever!
Lyrazel, please….. Women and men are fundamentally different creatures, so it’s very reasonable to expect that our interests/career choices will be different. Obviously, any new job training program should be open to qualified persons of whatever race or gender. However, we shouldn’t be surprised when more men show up for the construction jobs and more women show up for the nursing jobs.
As for your assessmant that teaching jobs pay poorly, I disagree. My last GF was making more than 55K as a teacher with approximately 10 years of experience, more than I’m currently making as a doctor with 22+ years of experience. When I suggested that she start pitching in to help cover the cost of our dates, she flat-out refused. So much for gender equality.
Out of curiosity, did you feel awkward at all being cared for by a male nurse? I don’t think that most women would want to be catheterized by a male nurse.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this
Hey Dog. The fair tax would be a wonderful thing but it will never happen unless there is a revolution. The sheeple of this country will never revolt, they don’t have the b-lls. As far as women doing men’s jobs, I cannot think of one that a woman cannot do but many that they would not want to do.
Howdy, Jack, welcome aboard!! As appealing as the “Fair Tax” sounds, I have to side with USinUK in believing that it would create a whole new set of (unintended) consequences. Sorry. The biggest appeal to the plan is the simplicity, of course. For many years, I had to pay my CPA thousands of dollars simply to calculate my taxes. What a waste.
I can’t be sure, but my working days may be coming to an end. My new Nigerian GF’s father just told me that he has $10 million in a Nigerian bank account, and will give me 10% if he can start depositing the checks into my bank account. What do you think? ; > }
By Gale
January 5, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this
Bruno, How many men choose a career as a construction worker? It is hard work. It is frequently not steady work. It is interesting that the female dominated fields you noted, teaching and nursing, require more formal schooling. The more skilled construction fields also require advanced training, but less, and less of an academic nature. I wonder if the problem with gaining gender equality is something to do with the learning phase or just the selection phase. I really think it is the selection phase. Training is available. One must chose the path.
I am in a fairly gender neutral field, computers. Given computers have been with us a relatively short time, I don’t think there is a gender bias in this field. Yet this is still a very male-dominated field. Women at programmer and above are about 20% the last study I saw. It was about 15% 30 years ago. I recently read that women had actually decreased somewhat recently. So, why do women not choose this field? The money is pretty good, work is steady, the environment is clean and the hours are usually regular. This is nothing at all like construction. Is it that women are not good at math or logic? I doubt that very much because I have seen both sexes with great or poor logic skills and most programming is simple math or basic algebra.
I think some gender bias in the workplace is because of social pressure. We start at early ages to indoctrinate children with what is appropriate for each sex. Most often, this is completely unconscious. Children learn a lot by observing their surroundings. We have a very long way to go before boys and girls grow up thinking anything they want to do is ok.
Now, dispite all that, I do recognize there are gender differences in play. Most men and women are hard-wired with some psychological and psyiological differences (beyond plumbing). A woman with a strong nurturing predisposition will probably not join the Army. She will tend to a field where she can interact with people. A man with a strong tendency to physical activity will not want to sit at a desk.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this
Most men and women are hard-wired with some psychological and psyiological differences (beyond plumbing).
Gale, I appreciate your level-headed response. I have difficulty understanding why some folks insist that there be “equal participation” in every career path in terms of race and gender.
By Gale
January 5, 2009 3:26 PM | Link to this
Bruno, right back at you. Do you feel comfortable with a female nurse doing your catherization? Women have dealt with male doctors for generations. Females have only recently joined the doctor corps in large numbers.
By American Woman
January 5, 2009 3:27 PM | Link to this
Hmmm…. In what century did women begin to outnumber men in the teaching profession, and do we make a distinction between elementary and higher education?
I think the relatively recent trend of predominantly female teachers has more to do with the expectations in our society regarding the woman’s role of tending to small children, and the work schedule that (at one time) allowed teachers to have and be near their own children, including summer vacation time, and less to do with natural inclinations. The starting salaries were certainly no incentive, and the extent to which one could advance without extending one’s own education was severely limited. In other words, more women than men may have chosen to go into teaching in the last 100 or so years, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect the notion that teaching someone else’s children all day for low pay while enduring impossible beaurocracy was their “dream job.” It may simply have made the most sense given the social climate, and the expectation that women will tailor their professional lives around the needs of their families, while the husbands will essentially put career first, enabled by their wives to do so.
It might also reflect the attitudes women come up against when considering male-dominated fields that are heavy in science and engineering — attitudes that are waning but which are clearly still present. Just my thoughts.
By Lyrazel
January 5, 2009 3:38 PM | Link to this
We patients dont care what sex somebody is when its an emergency situation, Bruno. It was about 5 days before I actually saw physical differences & skin color because I was so busy being sick. I would think (because of insurance or lawsuits) women nurses work on both sexes more than male nurses work on women. My brother in law is a nurse….with a MASH unit… He is HotLips…head nursie…
I would think that in offices patients tend to be persnickety because they are more cognizant.
When I suggested that she start pitching in to help cover the cost of our dates, she flat-out refused. So much for gender equality. Yes, I have this issue about women too. Bad to want equal rights then play some Victorian fashion femme fatal who cannot pay rent every once in awhile. I have seen generational shifts of attitude: traditional moms who finished high school and got married and remain completely reliant on husband (i.e,. my mother in-law pumped gas for the first time this year but has driven at least 20). Then came women in power pantsuits who want everything—money—power—status… launching the single woman with child just like movie stars disaster … leaving countless single moms in poverty without future dating opportunities. However, now women want to go to Harvard, get a law degree and work for a year or two, get married and stay home raising children. Ok its great for the woman to have this wallet available who not just works to pay home expenses but also pays her student loans (on top of his)…but geeze ladies! grow up and take him to dinner and a movie sometime…If women DO want equality they best KNOW what they are asking for, Bruno.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 3:52 PM | Link to this
Bruno, right back at you. Do you feel comfortable with a female nurse doing your catherization? Women have dealt with male doctors for generations.
Honestly, the few times I was examined intimately by a female MD/nurse, I felt a little awkward. I guess that I’m old-fashioned.
If women DO want equality they best KNOW what they are asking for, Bruno.
I have to say that I’ve been pleasantly surprised by my new GF. She actually got mad at me for spending $70 for dinner on Friday night. I thought to myself, “Honey, you have no idea….” Although she makes very little money, she is already insisting to treat next time.
Because of our race difference, we usually draw a few stares when we go out, most often from other black people. Go figure.
Gotta get back to work, enjoyed chatting with everyone today.
By Bruno
January 5, 2009 3:54 PM | Link to this
It was about 5 days before I actually saw physical differences & skin color because I was so busy being sick.
P.S. God Bless, Lyrazel. Glad you’re doing better.
By Gale
January 5, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this
I don’t think we should expect ‘equal participation’ in careers, just equal opportunity.
By Archie
January 5, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this
And what’s this crap about taxes? You want National Health care you WILL pay more taxes! You want to create more jobs in your state by having back to work programs you WILL pay more taxes. Any stimulus plan comes with a guarantee of higher taxes. Who does not get that? Promises politicians make on the campaign trail fall far from reality! Those are good points Lyrazel but some folk like my governor just spout the party line regardless as to the situation and they don’t put anything into context. With a National Healthcare plan you would pay more taxes but you wouldn’t necessarily pay more money out of your paycheck and I say that because what we’re really talking about is the way you pay for healthcare and the amount of premium. If I can pay 50 bucks per month and have the same plan I do now I don’t care if the money comes out of my paycheck as a tax. My governor says we have the 9th highest unemployment tax rate but he doesn’t say that it’s only on the first 7,000 dollars which means the actual money is less than a whole lot of states but if all you know is party line ideology then you can’t get anything done. Taxes have to put into context and every state seems to be running out of money for state programs because politicians have convinced the citizens that all taxes are bad at the state level. The irony is that counties around the country raise the sales tax or some other tax to make up the difference from what’s not coming from the state and in some places police departments and fire departments are shutting down. Let’s stop believing in these snake oil salesmen because if you’re going to have government you have to pay the workers a good wage and not doing that hurts the citizens. Government is not the enemy because you do have republican governors and legislators so government is not the enemy but a way to help all the people get some benefits they could not pay for individually. Nobody wants to take your money just for the sake of taking your money,please stop buying into that b.s.
By Sunshine
January 5, 2009 4:05 PM | Link to this
Hello All! Happy new year!
Bruno—I admire and support the “can-do” attitude that most of you ladies here espouse, but think that you are ignoring basic human nature when you think something is “wrong” when confronted with the fact that few women choose a career as a construction worker. I am in the construction industry, and am so by choice. I do dispatch, permitting, floor plans, inspections and planning among other things. It is not that there is something “wrong” when you generalize “human nature” it is that there will always be exceptions AND the way it was is not always the way it should be or will be on the way to creating more equality. My mom, at 60, works outdoors all day, all year in a “generally” male dominated field, it’s not human nature, IMHO, it is the opportunities that are available and have been in the past. My mom has fought the stereotype of being too “manly” because of her job for 30+ years!
By Archie
January 5, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this
but geeze ladies! grow up and take him to dinner and a movie sometime…If women DO want equality they best KNOW what they are asking for Yes,Lyrazel, yes.
By Gale
January 5, 2009 4:17 PM | Link to this
Happy New Year Sunshine. Out of curiosity, is your mom in landscaping or horticulture. I had a friend in grounds keeping some years ago and she had a realy hard time of it from the rest of the male crew. It was quite unfortunate, because she loved the work. It was a college and one of the benefits was tuition assistance for herself and her family.
By DaddyConstruction
January 5, 2009 4:36 PM | Link to this
Gale my dad did construction all his life, raised a family of 10, saw us through and we all thrive. As a matter of fact, most of us are versed and quite apt. My dad became immune to extreme weather conditions and did what a family man must do. He did it with ease and not a second thought. Amazingly, he never complained. He’s now retired and actually sitting back and taking it easy. Never was he a literate man but he did it and made it happen. I’m quite proud of him.
By American Woman
January 5, 2009 4:48 PM | Link to this
Gentlemen: It may be an issue of perception. Just exactly what do YOU think we’re asking for when we ask for “equality?”
Also, if you invite us to dinner at Chops, for example, where the tab for two well exceeds $100…. um…., do you already have an idea of how we are to reciprocate, and in your mind, is that what makes us “equal?” Or is that the time you wish for us to set aside the notion of equality and treat you like the big strong hero? Just curious.
By USinUK
January 6, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
I’m so very sorry to hear about your friend’s mom (and your 2nd mom) - my sympathies go out to both of you. ((hugs)) losing someone you love is hard enough - going through it around the holidays is just numbingly painful because all you can think is that they should be there.
Gale, I appreciate your level-headed response. I have difficulty understanding why some folks insist that there be “equal participation” in every career path in terms of race and gender.
I don’t think that folks expect “equal participation” in every career path - what I do expect is an equal opportunity to participate in any career path I choose. While I don’t think women will ever be 50% of a dry-wall team or welding team or paving team (or armed services, mining, etc), all I want is for women to be able to apply, be hired and work alongside the men (1) without harassment and (2) be paid the same wage for the same work. THAT, to me, is equality.
the point Andy was making above (and that I was echoing) wasn’t that women can’t work in construction - it’s that women, by and large, don’t work in construction. Therefore, the majority of new jobs created in that field will go to men, not women.
I got it, JJ. When Bush reduces taxes, it’s a bad thing. When Obama lowers taxes, it’s a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
the difference was that Bush was heading into a war - he knew he was heading into a war - he knew that the government would have huge outlays to pay for the war - and he cut taxes, anyway. Irresponsible. Some of Obama’s tax cuts are actually targeted to job creation (as opposed to what Bush passed) - Part of the tax incentives are for companies that open jobs, therefore upholding his pledge to create new jobs (although, that has yet to be clarified - as one of the Congress critters said, “what about the company that lays off 10,000 but hires 1,000 - are they entitled to a tax benefit?”).
Anyhoo - just my £0.02.
By lovelyliz
January 6, 2009 8:43 AM | Link to this
It’s the economy stupid
Whether it’s a salary that doesn’t keep up, healthcare that is growing exponentially more expensive if you are lucky enough to have it, unemployment, child support which is hard enough to get when times are good……………….
By Frustrated
January 6, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this
I would love to see exactly how the tax benefit for employers will work. As my tax professor once said “Don’t do anything stupid in order to get a tax break”…..So if someone can’t afford the 500 employees they laid off, how in the world is a tax benefit from hiring 100 people back on going to help?…they still have to pay out salaries and benefits(assuming that they even give benefits)…
It would be like someone struggling from pay check to pay check running out and buying a house in November, just to be able to get the interest credit on next years’ tax return…You are still having to pay the monthly mortgage that you can’t afford…. It doesn’t make any sense to me. But again, I have to read the whole policy.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 6, 2009 12:33 PM | Link to this
Seat Roland Burris! Seat Roland Burris!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 6, 2009 12:46 PM | Link to this
We are so screwed as a country. After the coronation, Barry will run this puppy into the dirt. He is the smartest president ever? Like Jimmy “the Peanut head farmer” Carter was smart? I hope not. Change, change change? Shytown politics as usual. SEAT ROLAND BURRIS!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 6, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this
Al Franken is a big fat liar and a bugger eater! I hope he chokes on donkey balls! Cheater Cheater pumpkin Eater!
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 10:05 AM | Link to this
USinUK
the difference was that Bush was heading into a war - he knew he was heading into a war - he knew that the government would have huge outlays to pay for the war
Yea. Big difference. Of course going to war creates no jobs (sarcasm)and since the media controls the news, HURTS our economy for the first time in the history of a civilization. We spent more money in one day in October ‘08 than the entire war cost. The bank bailout alone will probably top a trillion, plus another trillion in a stimulus package. So let’s review. Bush is wrong for lowering taxes because we would be spending 500 billion on a war (which of course goes right back into our economy) over the next 6 years, but Obama is right in cutting taxes even though we just spent a trillion in a month and are about to spend another trillion in the next three months.
It’s pristine logic like this that has put us in the mess we are in.
The best thing about alll this is watching Obama figuring out that the policies that he ran on is nothing but nonsense for the gullibly indoctrinated and now he sees that Bush did what he should have done, but when Obama continues to do what Bush did, it is now enlightened leadership. Obama is smart as hell. The people who put him in office: not so much.
By USinUK
January 7, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Of course going to war creates no jobs (sarcasm)and since the media controls the news, HURTS our economy for the first time in the history of a civilization
I’ve already wiped the floor with you on this particular argument … do you REALLY want to go another round???
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this
You wiped the floor with me by agreeing with me? You NEVER proved that the war hurt our economy. You did prove that the war effort was not as involved as WWII. you sure do like to run your mouth for someone that seldom proves ANYTHING.
And per-usual, I slap you around for making a bone headed statement, but your only recourse is to pick out a sentence from three paragraphs and try to pick a fight. So sad.
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this
American Woman
Also, if you invite us to dinner at Chops, for example, where the tab for two well exceeds $100…. um…., do you already have an idea of how we are to reciprocate, and in your mind, is that what makes us “equal?” Or is that the time you wish for us to set aside the notion of equality and treat you like the big strong hero? Just curious.
A guy finds someone he likes. He asks her out and to impress her, he takes her to Chops where he spends more than some people make in a week on one meal.
That is what the man offers. What the American Woman offers is what you see here: bitterness, sarcasm, resentment and mocking the man’s manhood. She offers nothing other than maybe washing her hair before the date. Thanks, babe.
I have been visiting a site where people discuss dating issues. Lots of European and eastern women come there. We have been having a discussion about why American men don’t like American women. I hope you don’t mind, but I copied your post and posted it as a perfect example of why we prefer women from anywhere else but the spoiled, bitter, angry examples that are now offered by this country.
I am dating again. I went out with three women from the states during Christmas. That will be the last of them. I went out with a woman from Italy last weekend. I won’t be asking another American out.
By Rockefellow
January 7, 2009 10:47 AM | Link to this
“I have no choice but to lay off one of my staff and use what should have been her salary to pay that tax increase.” Wait a minute. If this employee was earning a margin of profit for your company (and they should),when you laid that person off ,did not,the earnings that employee made for your company stop? If so, how could you use what was no longer being earned? In other words, you expect to make more money when you hire extra people.When you lay the off, your earnings should decrease in relation to the layoff of you helpers.If they don’t increase your profits,you let them go. No?
By USinUK
January 7, 2009 10:47 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
You NEVER proved that the war hurt our economy. You did prove that the war effort was not as involved as WWII. you sure do like to run your mouth for someone that seldom proves ANYTHING
the facts speak for themselves … unemployment has actually risen for the majority of Rumble in Iraq II’s duration and the economy is currently in the 2nd recession of Bush’s tenure … and your argument is that Iraq II has helped the economy?
billions of dollars have been spent there, not here - building bases and a $700M embassey there does nothing to help our economy. yes, the “military industrial complex” has benefitted, but that hasn’t helped the economy OVERALL, as earlier stated, due to the facts that:
1) the overall manpower sent “over there” is a small fraction of the overall population and hasn’t created job openings the way it did during WW I and II
2) we’re not in the middle of an international lend/lease program where we’re supplying other countries with vast amounts of tanks/guns/planes, etc, requiring the retooling of non-defense industries
your only recourse is to pick out a sentence from three paragraphs and try to pick a fight. So sad.
considering the majority of what you wrote is only so much blah-blah-blah, I countered the only statement you made of any substance.
By What 'manhood'?
January 7, 2009 10:51 AM | Link to this
Steady now ladies. He’s just baiting you. Don’t fall for it.
PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLL
for all our sakes.
By USinUK
January 7, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this
… off to a 2-hour meeting, then heading home … be back around 7-ish GMT …
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this
the facts speak for themselves … unemployment has actually risen for the majority of Rumble in Iraq II’s duration and the economy is currently in the 2nd recession of Bush’s tenure … and your argument is that Iraq II has helped the economy?
So you are saying that the Iraq war CAUSED that? Funny thing, in all the hearings I have listened to, they talked about loaning mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them that caused the problems we are now in. Never a word about the war causing the problems. You are speaking our of your rear again.
considering the majority of what you wrote is only so much blah-blah-blah, I countered the only statement you made of any substance.
blah blah blah. You are always right and you get to judge what is worthy of your immaculate response. What a load of crap.
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this
What manhood.
Better run away or ignore me. It’s all you have.
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this
Rockefellow
Wait a minute. If this employee was earning a margin of profit for your company (and they should),when you laid that person off ,did not,the earnings that employee made for your company stop? If so, how could you use what was no longer being earned?
This is obviously from a person who has never owned a company or tried to meet payroll. if that logic made sense, everyone woould simply hire everybody they could find so their company can make lots of money.
Simple minds.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 7, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this
War helps reduce World Hunger by reducing the population! More War not less War! War is the Answer! Global Warming? The War Cure is NUCLEAR WINTER! See? Easy! All great inventions stem directly from solving a war problem. All of them.
By American Woman
January 7, 2009 11:18 AM | Link to this
TOJ said: “What the American Woman offers is what you see here: bitterness, sarcasm, resentment and mocking the man’s manhood. She offers nothing other than maybe washing her hair before the date.”*
Excuse me? I don’t recall offering anything! I was simply seeking clarification on the gentlemen’s feelings based on the comments of Mr. Bruno and Mr. Archie regarding women, equality, and paying for dates. I made no comment regarding, nor effort to share, MY feelngs on the subject, but only attempted to get the gentlemen to open up a bit more about their feelings. You are simply being rude, and therefore I am not interested in delving deeper in to YOUR feelings, but thanks anyway.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 7, 2009 11:37 AM | Link to this
American Woman, if I take you out to Chops, I expect some reciprocation! Like the Aerosmith song goes, “legs in the air like you just don’t care!” What do you expect after a night at Chops? Clever conversation? That’s a Starbucks date… :-)
By Bruno
January 7, 2009 12:54 PM | Link to this
the difference was that Bush was heading into a war - he knew he was heading into a war - he knew that the government would have huge outlays to pay for the war - and he cut taxes, anyway. Irresponsible.
USinUK—I agree with you that cutting taxes while increasing expenditures is irresponsible, but only to a point. Under Reagan and Kennedy before him, a decrease in the tax rate actually resulted in greater tax collection, which was the guiding principle behind the Bush tax cuts.
As far as government expenditures, the war in Iraq isn’t even close to our largest expense right now. I don’t have a figure handy, but all of our “entitlement” programs dwarf the war outlay by far. My beef with Bush isn’t so much for increasing the military spending, but for not reducing all of the rest of the spending.
Frankly, I’m not following your logic in believing that deficit spending under Obama will be beneficial considering the amount of squawking you and the other “left-leaners” have done in regard to the out-of-control spending the last 8 years.
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this
American Woman
You are simply being rude, and therefore I am not interested in delving deeper in to YOUR feelings, but thanks anyway.
My point could not be better proven.
By USinUK
January 7, 2009 1:22 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
So you are saying that the Iraq war CAUSED that? Funny thing, in all the hearings I have listened to, they talked about loaning mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them that caused the problems we are now in. Never a word about the war causing the problems. You are speaking our of your rear again.
No - I’m saying that the Iraq War hasn’t HELPED the economy, which is your central thesis.
The main industries that see a boost through defense spending are Transportation, Electronic Equipment, and Computers (specific sectors) and manufacturing overall.
Employment in all 3 of the specific sectors and manufacturing overall declined steadily since January 2003.
Additionally, the defense industry’s contribution to GDP since the start of the war has only averaged 21 basis points (or .21%) through Q308. Additionally, for 7 of those 23 quarters, the defense industry was a negative contributor to growth (30%).
So, the war has helped the economy??? no. not so much.
(I’m happy to give you the Bloomberg codes for all the stats I just looked up so that you can verify).
By Bruno
January 7, 2009 1:27 PM | Link to this
Also, if you invite us to dinner at Chops, for example, where the tab for two well exceeds $100…. um…., do you already have an idea of how we are to reciprocate, and in your mind, is that what makes us “equal?” Or is that the time you wish for us to set aside the notion of equality and treat you like the big strong hero? Just curious.
I can’t answer for the other fellows on board, but here’s my outlook: When I first start dating a woman, I tend to overspend on the first several dates, long before any expectation of intimacy. As such, there is no quid pro quo arrangement, whether stated or unstated. The reason I overspend is two-fold—(1) If I don’t know a woman well, I try to select “interesting” dates such as going to a museum or show so that there is a natural external focus, making conversation more natural. (2) In spite of all my successes in life, I’m still somewhat shy and lack self-confidence, so that I tend to overcompensate by lavishing a woman until I get to know her better.
Once things start flowing in a relationship, I will still spring for the occasional “spectacular” date, but only because I want to, not because I expect something in return.
Did I answer your question?
By USinUK
January 7, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this
GtW … I thought that was HANDS in the air (and wave them like you jsut don’t care) … silly me.
Bruno -
Under Reagan and Kennedy before him, a decrease in the tax rate actually resulted in greater tax collection, which was the guiding principle behind the Bush tax cuts
what we saw during the last few years was an increase in taxes collected due to record corporate profits - personal earnings have seen some of the slowest growth since the 1970s and, as we all know, unemployment has been rising, so the famous Reagan “trickle-down” effect hasn’t really been seen.
Frankly, I’m not following your logic in believing that deficit spending under Obama will be beneficial considering the amount of squawking you and the other “left-leaners” have done in regard to the out-of-control spending the last 8 years.
as I said earlier on, I ha-ha-HATE deficit spending (as much as my liberal heart bleeds for social issues, I’m a financial hawk). however, if one believes in the principles of Keynesian economics (and I do), then you know that a decline in consumer spending needs to be supplanted with government spending to “prime the well”, as it were.
or, to put it another way - not all government spending is alike. some government spending IS “more equal than others”. Deficit spending on projects IN THE US that will result in job growth IN THE US is vastly different than government spending on projects OVERSEAS that result in job growth OVERSEAS. (I think we can all agree on that, right?)
then, as folks roll into employment, their wallets loosen a little and consumer spending returns to normal levels, lessening the necessity for deficit spending.
I hope that clarified things a bit :-)
okay, now I’m REALLY heading home … as the great philosopher Pooh said “my tumbly is rumbly” and I need my din. see you in an hour-ish or so.
By Texas Pete
January 7, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this
To help save all women money on their taxes, I propose that they let me get them pregnant. A new child will serve as a tax deduction for the next 18 years.
By Bruno
January 7, 2009 1:39 PM | Link to this
Gentlemen: It may be an issue of perception. Just exactly what do YOU think we’re asking for when we ask for “equality?”
I wish I had a non-cynical answer for you, but like TOJ, I’ve grown to prefer the company of women born in other countries. The level of appreciation just isn’t there with the American-born ladies, especially given the imbalance in contribution to the relationship, both in terms of economics and ideas.
I’m very open to hearing your side of the story, so please fill me in on what YOUR ideas regarding equality are.
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 1:42 PM | Link to this
Gandalf
It is pathetic if a guy takes a woman to Chops on a first date. If she is comfortable with intimacy after a few dates, then the Chops thing is just part of the package. As much as it is taboo to say it, sex makes the difference, but it is not the only difference. Many other forms of intimacy play into a good relationship.
If a female friend and I go out, we either split the ticket or keep up with who picked up the tab, last. A girlfriend is a totally different thing. If a relationship is maturing and we are getting closer, which of course means more intimate, then a very expensive evening might be nice, but would not necessarily end up in the sack.
i think the great thing about non-American women is the fact that they like to just enjoy themselves and see what happens. As you see with “American Woman”, sex carries a barter price and a sense of control. The importance is played to the hilt and as you can see, her consent is a commodity.
If “American Woman” is being taken to Chops by someone before a relationship is stable, while sex, or anything else is still in the negotiating stage of a relationship, her choices in men are along the same lines with her choices in logic.
By American Woman
January 7, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this
Dear Mr. Gandalf and Mr. Bruno: Thank you for sharing! Your honesty is golden!!
I have to wonder, though, what Mr. TOJ (or Mr. Gandalf) would have to say about a WOMAN who came here and posted, “I have been visiting a site where people discuss dating issues. Lots of European and eastern MEN come there. We have been having a discussion about why American WOMEN don’t like AMERICAN MEN, and why we prefer MEN from ANYWHERE ELSE but this country. I am dating again. I WENT OUT WITH THREE MEN FROM THE STATES DURING CHRISTMAS!! That will be the last of them. I went out with a MAN from Italy last weekend. I won’t be accepting a date from another AMERICAN MAN.”
Just speculating here, but I’ll bet Mr. Gandalf would have quite a few creative pronouns to extend to a woman who spoke thusly, don’t you think?
By American Woman
January 7, 2009 2:12 PM | Link to this
Bruno, re: your 1:39: I don’t know how well men and women understand each other in other countries, but I don’t think we do as well as we could here. The societal norms regarding dating, marriage, and roles have changed drastically from our parent’s generation to our children’s. Most women I know still appreciate gentlemanly behavior, yet expect equal opportunity and pay in the workplace. Most Americans, I believe, hold a mixture of traditional values with regard to some aspects of life, and progressive ideals in others. Finding a compatible mix can be a challenge.
As to the foreign vs. domestic question, the American woman’s issues are not so different from yours. I know many women (like USinUK) who married foreign men, if not the first, at least the second time around. I too have expressed frustration at the men of my generation, so many of whom seem to be put out by the very idea of supporting a family, and for whom earning potential is a huge slice of their criteria when selecting a mate. Most of my friends who divorced have a similar story: “He refused to step up when I needed him. He wanted me to be his mommy and handle all his sh— while he played videogames all night or got high. He lost his job and sat around feeling sorry for himself while I had to work and take care of the kids and do everything. He was furious when I cut up the credit cards because I couldn’t stop him from blowing all our money on gadgets.” I don’t know if men of previous generations approached their relationships with a “what’s in it for me?” angle, but I’ve certainly seen plenty of it in mine. Of course, I also know plenty of truly decent, wonderful American men, so I wonder what’s the value of lumping everybody together?
When it comes to the “am I exactly equal, or do I have a gender-defined role in this relationship?” issue, I think men and women are equally confused.
By Jack
January 7, 2009 2:13 PM | Link to this
Going “dutch” never entered my mind. I’m kind of old fashioned. If I take a women on 100 dates, I paya the check.
By Gale
January 7, 2009 2:25 PM | Link to this
American Woman, it’s that old double standard again.
Bruno: The level of appreciation just isn’t there with the American-born ladies, especially given the imbalance in contribution to the relationship, both in terms of economics and ideas.
Then there’s the imbalance that usually exists in the home, (to some extent, more or less,) where the wife often also works, but is still expected to keep the house clean, do the laundry, shopping, cooking, and raise the kids. Your comment implies that men automatically contribute more money and ideas; though I am not clear what you mean by ‘ideas’. Sounds like you think men are de facto the more important of the pair. Perhaps American women are more pragmatic than the foreign women you have met?
I don’t know about all women. If someone asked me to Chops for dinner, or any restaurant I knew would be expensive, I would decide if I could pay for my own meal if the invite wasn’t meant the way I would mean it. If I invite someone to dinner, I expect to pay for them. (I think that is a common notion.) However, If I were the invitee and didn’t think I could afford to pay for my own meal, I would suggest someplace cheaper and tell that person I thought the place was too expensive for me. Then, the invitor could could tell me they intended to pay or we could negotiate a less expensive venue. The key here is communication, not assumption. Whether this is an established relationship or a new acquaintence, communication is the key to making the relationship last.
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this
American Woman
When it comes to the “am I exactly equal, or do I have a gender-defined role in this relationship?” issue, I think men and women are equally confused.
Just for Americans in this culture. The woman from Italy was so great because there was no gender identity problems. She hung on my arm. She made me feel like a man. She let me know all night in small subtle ways that she was “with me”. I wanted to treat her great because of the way she was treating me. There is a large sense of mutual respect and togetherness. I don’t know if this is what Bruno finds, but I know several men that have agreed with me in the past.
I dated a woman from the Ukraine for several years and it was the same thing with her.
If you want to date European men, then have at it. I would not be in the least offended if I read a post that described you as having better experiences with European men than American men. You and I have never dated so why would I take that personally?
By Gale
January 7, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack, would you still expect to pay if the woman invited you? Just curious. If I invite, I expect to pay. But, I don’t expect everyone to think like I do.
By USinUK
January 7, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this
Personally, I find it interesting that, whenever discussions of equality flair up (like a bad rash), the guys talk about dating and the economics thereof and the women talk about work/housework and sharing the load.
I know many women (like USinUK) who married foreign men, if not the first, at least the second time
I can’t speak for anyone else who has married foreigners, but I married the guy, not the passport. The first time I met him, I thought he was a cutie (which he is) but was off the charts when it came to being Geographically Undesirable, so we hung out as friends - no big romantic vibe getting in the way. The whole romantic thing happened a couple of months (and hours and hours of conversations and emails and IM session).
I don’t know why Bruno and TOJ feel like they can’t make it work with an American woman … much like most people who claim to have lactose intolerance but really don’t, I suspect it’s in their heads.
at the end of the day, peoples is peoples, regardless of where they’re from. in relationships/marriage you’re going to deal with the same 4 issues, no matter if your SO is American or not: sex, money, family, housework. Those are the things that make/break relationships - not nationality.
By Gale
January 7, 2009 3:38 PM | Link to this
I suppose I may have a skewed viewpoint on dating since I have not dated for many years. When I started my current relationship, it was long distance and we spent many months in the same mode USinUK describes. We were four states apart. A dinner date was not in the picture. I think many women have a different viewpoint than men in relation to dating. It starts with the relative value to each of the relationship. As some of the men have stated here, the relationship may not get started if the women isn’t attractive enough.
By Archie
January 7, 2009 3:42 PM | Link to this
Personally I haven’t dated in a long time,long time so american or not it makes no difference and USinUk is correct about the 4 issues you deal with in a relationship and I must say this it’s not always the guys that are slack with the housework or the guys that spend too much money. I think guys just don’t speak up enough about it when they do the cooking and cleaning. I won’t blog too much because I posted about this a lot over the years, but I think some women ride the coattails of the women that do have to deal with the double standard. I mean some of y’all just plain lazy. I have a different perspective being a minority and I posted about this years ago but since I have not dated in a long time I don’t know what ladies expect in this generation.
By American Woman
January 7, 2009 3:50 PM | Link to this
GALE, you haven’t missed much. Dating is still the most awkward thing people do this side of trying to ice skate with a bowl of chili on your head.
I was discussing this with a friend and her Eastern European husband. (H-O-T HOT, y’all…) Anyway, HE was expressing HIS dismay at the level commitment-phobia of his American peers… men his age who date a woman four, five, years and “aren’t sure” whether they’re “ready” to marry. Married men all freaked out when their 34 yr old wives want to have a baby. “Oh no! Don’t wanna be tied down! No more fun!” In his mind, you fall in love, you join together, you have babies and love them — the basis of bliss. He’s asking US what’s the matter with these men!
Many men I know are reluctent to express their real feelings, or to let on how much they like a woman, for fear she’ll think they’re “serious” and expect a commitment, and yes, for fear she’ll try to take advantage of them economically.
Frankly, my confidence is not particularly bolstered by an American man who comes to a woman’s forum and basically states, “American women S—K! I’ll never date another one of you horrible creatures as long as I live!!!” Then basically says, “Go date who you want, I couldn’t give less of a darn what you do.” Is this an “American” style of winning friends and influencing people? Or do the beautiful people of EE do it too?
By USinUK
January 7, 2009 3:59 PM | Link to this
Gale -
you hit on 2 key points:
1) none of the folkses here (myself included) are in our 20s anymore. the older you get, the more you know the type of person you’re compatible with (and, more to the point, NOT compatible with)
which leads to
2) dating in your 30s - 40s - and onward ISN’T LIKE DATING IN YOUR TEENS and 20s!!! and anyone who is expecting the same kind of experience you had when you were in high school or college or even just out of college and working your first job is living in LaLa Land. We’re busier, whether it’s with work responsibilities or kids or just the responsiblity of life maintenance. You get to your late 30s (and onward) and basically, you just want to say “look, are you in or are you out? I have neither the time nor energy to faff around with this”
frankly, I don’t care who pays (neither do most of my female friends) - as I’ve said in the past, Mr USinUK and I split the cost of dating, and even now, I still try to suprise him occasionally. Heck, we even split our anniversary (alternating who plans/pays for the date each year). Economics isn’t the issue - expectations, from what TOJ and Bruno have said, seems to be the issue.
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this
Gale
It’s friendship. There are no hard set laws. Two friends took me to a $200 lunch on my birthday. A guy and a girl. We all had a blast.
But lots of us work at home so we eat out together at least three or four times a week.
USinUK
It’s not that we can’t make it work. And no one is saying all women from anywhere are the same, but as much as people may be the same no matter where they are from, cultural differences dictate a lot. American Woman is right in saying that Americans are confused. It’s very nice to be with a woman who is not confused, who loves being a woman and loves to treat me like a man.
By Gale
January 7, 2009 4:21 PM | Link to this
Yikes, you hit on an issue for me, USinUK. Who plans/pays for the anniversery fun. We usually endup not doing much of anything because I have the money, but I’m a poor planner. That and the fact that it falls right after Valentine’s day and my B-day. Seems like every year that we do come up with something good, circumstances thwart us.
By Gale
January 7, 2009 4:31 PM | Link to this
TOJ: It’s very nice to be with a woman who is not confused, who loves being a woman and loves to treat me like a man.
Now there is a statement that is seriously subjective and based on your expectations. I suspect all the women here “love being women” (myself included) and we all believe we treat our men (excluding me) like men. From what you say about your dates, I am envisioning a bimbo who may or may not have a brain, that not really being important to youo. Sorry if I offend, but that is the picture I am getting from what you said.
By American Woman
January 7, 2009 4:51 PM | Link to this
Ms. Gale, great response at 4:31! I too wonder about Mr. TOJ’s expectations. Earlier he said: “As you see with “American Woman”, sex carries a barter price and a sense of control.” (a supposition not supported by anything I said.)
Here’s where some of the confusion comes in: A “traditional” woman does NOT give up the lovin’ just because you took her to a nice restaurant. She waits until there is some sort of commitment. She holds out for the repeat attention, with the expectation of a commitment, home, family, etc. She’s oh-so-ladylike. Isn’t THAT using sex for barter and control? Whereas the woman who is warm and open, ooo-ing and ahhh-ing over the handsome qualities of her manly companion, who willingly and eagerly wraps her love around her date simply because she’s enjoying his company, the evening, the look, smell, and feel of him close to her, and the natural evolution of mutual desire…. she may well be branded a “s-l-u-t” or he thinks surely she’s got an agenda, right? Either way, natural behavior is not “traditional,” and I can’t even begin to go into where pragmatism enters the equation! No WONDER we’re confused!!!
By USinUK
January 7, 2009 4:52 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
first of all - I wish you all the luck in the world with your new la-la-LUUUUUUV interest. :-)
secondly - as for confusion, I think it goes both ways. guys seem to want a 21st century woman economically but a 1950s woman socially (to use your phrase, someone who makes you feel like a man but who will also pay the tab). most women I know - not all, but most - do want a traditional relationship (marriage or some kind of committed relationship) but think that, should they actually say that out loud, the guy will scupper off.
as for the 5-10 years with no wedding in sight - the woman is just as guilty as the guy for letting that crap happen. I know of too many women who let the guy malinger around for YEARS without saying “poop or get off the pot!!” and that’s their own fault for allowing it to go on and on and on. then the guy leaves and marries the next woman he dates.
Gale -
There’s no law that says that you have to celebrate your anniversary ON your anniversary. I treated him to a spa day when we were on holiday in Rome the year before last - that was a few weeks after the actual anniversary. so, you can always let the V-day and B-day dust settle, then do something nice together a few weeks later. go somewhere to enjoy the dogwoods and azaleas (February usually sucks weatherwise, anyway)
that’s it for me tonight - pasta del fuego!!
By The Other Jack
January 7, 2009 5:11 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I think it goes both ways. guys seem to want a 21st century woman economically but a 1950s woman socially (to use your phrase, someone who makes you feel like a man but who will also pay the tab
I think you misunderstood my post. I would never allow a woman to pay for a date, especially a nice date, unless it was a special occasion. I said that I split the tab with friends, not girl friends. I am old school “courting”, sending flowers, opening doors, the whole deal. I have sang songs to woman. It has been shameful. Most American women either don’t like it or are uncomfortable with it. I don’t want to be equal. I can’t be a woman and she can’t be a man.
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 8:11 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
I don’t want to be equal. I can’t be a woman and she can’t be a man.
being equal /= being the same.
screw drivers and hammers are pretty equal, both have their unique uses, but neither could do the other’s job
apples and oranges are pretty equal, both make fantastic juice and are great in cakes, but they ripen at different times and taste completely different
I don’t know any woman who thinks they are exactly the same as a man - but they are still their equals and deserve to be treated as such, with the same dignity and respect. We wimmen have the same capacity for intellect, you men have the same capacity for aesthetics. Some wimmen could kick most men’s behinds up and down a gym, some men could teach women a thing or two about … I dunno … ballroom dancing.
If you say you don’t want to be equal, it means you want to be treated/thought of as superior (after all, who wants to be treated/though of as inferior).
By Frustrated
January 8, 2009 8:21 AM | Link to this
1) none of the folkses here (myself included) are in our 20s anymore.
Says who????
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 8:49 AM | Link to this
Frustrated …
Says who????
okay, MOST of us aren’t in our 20s anymore ….
(sheesh … kids these days)
;-)
By Frustrated
January 8, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this
If you say you don’t want to be equal, it means you want to be treated/thought of as superior (after all, who wants to be treated/though of as inferior).
I don’t know that I agree with you on this. I don’t know that being equal means that one has to give their title as “superior” away. As with all things, there are levels of superiority. If we were to be robbed, I would like to think my hubby would take care of business, not look at me as his “equal” and expect me to clobber the theif. But when it comes to finances, I wouldn’t want him touching the checkbook with a 20 foot pole.
So who gets the “superior” title?? I would definitely say him in the world of protection and me when it comes to our household finances.
By Mara
January 8, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this
USinUK - screw drivers and hammers are pretty equal, both have their unique uses, but neither could do the other’s job…If you say you don’t want to be equal, it means you want to be treated/thought of as superior
(wild applause) Well said! In my experience, most of those men who say women won’t “let them be the man” actually mean that she doesn’t hang on their every word like it’s the most fascinating thing she’s ever heard, doesn’t hang off his arm like an accessory (much to the envy of his friends), and doesn’t look on admiringly as he makes all the decisions. Frankly, I agree with you that most of these guys DO see “being treated like a man” as being treated like they’re superior.
for the men on the forum…since I’m going to assume that you personally don’t feel this way so what do you mean when you say “…be the man”?
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 9:22 AM | Link to this
Frustrated -
So who gets the “superior” title?? I would definitely say him in the world of protection and me when it comes to our household finances.
you missed the first part of the post - which was the entire point. Equal /= Alike. You each have your personal strengths and weaknesses, but you both are equal in your basic humanity - shouldn’t you treat each other with the same amount of respect and dignity?
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 9:29 AM | Link to this
Mara -
Frankly, I agree with you that most of these guys DO see “being treated like a man” as being treated like they’re superior.
three words: Mail. Order. Bride.
s’all i’m sayin’
By Gale
January 8, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this
I think most of the women commenting think of relationships as a partnership of equals; each partner being better/superior at some things and less capable at other things. I get an impression from TOJ that ‘real men’ are treated by ‘real women’ as if they are better at everything even when they are not, as long as the criteria includes those things ‘real men’ do and not woman-stuff.
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 9:49 AM | Link to this
I get an impression from TOJ that ‘real men’ are treated by ‘real women’ as if they are better at everything even when they are not, as long as the criteria includes those things ‘real men’ do and not woman-stuff.
all I know is that if you need to have someone else make you “feel like a real man” (or real woman), then there are some serious issues that need to be dealth with … and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the nationality of the person you’re seeing. in fact, they have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else at all.
(ahem)
I can bring home the bacon … (ba-ba-ba-ba-BA) … Fry it up in a pan … (ba-ba-ba-ba-BA) … cause I’m a wooooooooooooooman, W-O-M-A-N … I’ll say it again
By lovelyliz
January 8, 2009 9:52 AM | Link to this
The company I work for hired a woman for our accounting department 2 weeks before Christmas. She had just been laid off by her last boss. On December 29 she cam e in and gave her one day notice. Her old boss had found out that laying off someone justr to save $$$$ doesn’t mean much if their fundction is vital and not being performed by anyone else. She went back to the old job and even got a bonus for it.
By Jack
January 8, 2009 10:22 AM | Link to this
“Some wimmen could kick most men’s behinds up and down a gym”
But not in the ring.
By Jack
January 8, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this
Gale, I would pay if I decided to go.
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this
Jack -
But not in the ring.
have you seen Ali’s daughter? and I think Frazier’s dauther is a boxer, as well. they could wipe the floor with the average guy.
the point, however, isn’t about being the same in all things, it’s about equality in our humanity despite our different abilities and strengths.
By Mara
January 8, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this
Gale - I think most of the women commenting think of relationships as a partnership of equals; each partner being better/superior at some things and less capable at other things.
BINGO! You and UK are on a roll today :^)
By Gale
January 8, 2009 11:02 AM | Link to this
Jack, I think it would be true in the ring, too; as long as the woman in question was a trained boxer (martial art of choice) and the man was your average guy who does not work out. :->
USinUK, nice tune.
lovelyliz, Wouldn’t you think twice about returning to work for the dufus that didn’t know you were critical to the department? I’d worry about being in the next round after I had trained a backup.
By Frustrated
January 8, 2009 11:05 AM | Link to this
Did anyone read this story????
Police: Mother helped husband rape their daughter
What is the world coming to?
By Gale
January 8, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this
Mara, I think it has something to do with how women think. Did you see the first Bond with Dame Judi as M? When the general complains about M not having the *alls to do somthing and M retorts, “On the plus side I don’t have to always think with them.” or something like that.
In truth, I think it has to do with the basic wiring for the sexes. How did the King in The King and I put it? Woman is like a flower waiting for just one bee. Man is like a bee, going from flower to flower. Biological imperatives. Which is what I always think about when people complain about the (not completely unwarrented) impression that gay men are promiscuous.
By Gale
January 8, 2009 11:29 AM | Link to this
Frustrated, I try to not read stories like that. You should read Mark Moreford’s lastest column in sfgate. He is talking about a web site compendium of the most gruesome AP photos of the year, and why would anyone want to look at that.
By Jack
January 8, 2009 11:32 AM | Link to this
“the point, however, isn’t about being the same in all things, it’s about equality in our humanity despite our different abilities and strengths.”
I agree with that.
But not in the octagon for sure.
Frustrated. If true, they should both be removed from the gene pool.
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this
Sadly, after some of the stories that came out in the last few months (such as the German man who locked his eldest in the basement for years and fathered her 9 children), nothing surprises me, anymore.
as for the mother helping the father - really, it’s no worse than the mothers who turn a blind eye to it
What is the world coming to?
the world hasn’t changed - the only difference is that we know about it, now whereas before, it was a dirty family secret
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 11:44 AM | Link to this
Gale -
How did the King in The King and I put it? Woman is like a flower waiting for just one bee. Man is like a bee, going from flower to flower. Biological imperatives. Which is what I always think about when people complain about the (not completely unwarrented) impression that gay men are promiscuous.
I’m not going to say bollocks, but I will think it. loudly.
the problem is that “biological imperatives” have been used to excuse bad behavior for centuries - and shame has been used to keep we wimmen folk in our place for just as long. women have just as many (ahem) imperatives as men do - and just as often - and aren’t any more biologically programmed to have those imperatives with just one person for the rest of their days than men are.
however, we’ve been called s—ts and w—res and (my favorite British expression) slappers for hundreds of years in order to keep us docile - and so the father could feel confident that the resulting sprog was actually his.
okay, I’ll say it - bollocks to all that.
By American Woman
January 8, 2009 11:53 AM | Link to this
I have sang songs to woman. It has been shameful. Most American women either don’t like it or are uncomfortable with it.
I don’t find that shameful at all, have been the recipient of such ballads, and treasure the memories (and tapes) immensely. Of course, he wasn’t American.
By Gale
January 8, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this
USinUK, Oh, I don’t say the King was right. I was just using that to state the position that TOJ seems to be making. I don’t agree with “keeping in our place” or even that life long monogamy is the goal for women or men. As you understood what I said, you are right to yell bullocks. However, what I meant was just that men tend to think of sex over relationship, or perhaps rather that relation may happen eventually. While women may well think of sex early on in a relationship and indeed, may act on that, a relationship will tend to be more important.
It would be swell if we were not so consumed with “who’s the father”. I don’t see our society evolving to that anytime soon. But truth is, children can be raised very well by folks not their biological parents. Here’s a thought. Where do the UHC plans stand on single moms?
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 12:17 PM | Link to this
Gale -
But truth is, children can be raised very well by folks not their biological parents.
speaking as an adopted person, I’ll give that a hearty round of applause!
there was a news story 5 or so years ago about a couple who had used IVF to conceive - but it turned out the clinic had mixed up the sperm with another patient, so the father wasn’t the biological father. he actually said on camera (ACTUALLY SAID THIS), that he didn’t feel like the kid was his anymore.
now, I’m not normally a violent person, but I really wanted to reach through the TV and dope-slap the guy until his teeth rattled.
I mean, really. People who are so damned shallow to think that DNA is what makes you someone’s father or mother don’t deserve the flippin’ kid in the first place.
(breathing deeply … blood pressure going back down … callllmmmm … callllmmm)
By Gandalf, the White!
January 8, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this
EXPAT: HERE ARE THE LYRICS, MY MEMORY FAILED…
seesaw swingin’ with the boys in the school
and your feet flyin’ up in the air
singin’ “hey diddle diddle”
with your kitty in the middle of the swing
like you didn’t care
WALK THIS WAY!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 8, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this
EXPAT! I would so kick Ali’s daughter’s behind in the ring! She can beat up woman, but get real! That is stupid! She would be out in 30 seconds! American Woman, date the ferners, I gives a dang!
They might take you to Chops,and not expect a ride when they get home!
(I would want carnal knowledge in the bathroom and parkin’ lot!)
I like my woman from the good old USA! Had my share of them thar European girls, they don’t shave enough and are hard to understand. Though I must admit Italiam Women are all very sexy, had my share of the thar Aso-pacific-indian woman to, they are nice and have pretty hair and skin, but they all just wanted a ride to the big PX. American Woman rock! They are opinionated and all that, but well worth the trouble. I like woman that live way up a hill, cuz it makes that caboose look so fine! hehe
By Gandalf, the White!
January 8, 2009 1:13 PM | Link to this
EXPAT see how good violence feels! I think there is hope for you yet! :-)
By Jack
January 8, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this
Slappers?
By Mara
January 8, 2009 1:30 PM | Link to this
USinUK - People who are so damned shallow to think that DNA is what makes you someone’s father or mother don’t deserve the flippin’ kid in the first place.
I completely understand where you’re coming from on this, and I don’t disagree, but…when someone adopts or fosters a child, they’re making the choice to be take up someone elses responsibility knowing that there would be no biological connection to previous generations. They get to make that choice because those kind of people want a child, any child, to love.
On the other hand, there are probably more folks who only want to have their child. These people do procreate with an expectation that they’re continuing the “family line” and believe that their child will one day exhibit family traits, like Grandma Elise’s talent for music perhaps. They love the child because it is their blood, their family, a continuation of their heritage.
It is understandable (to me, anyway) why that person might feel angry and disconnected from the child when they find out that in reality there’s no “family” relationship to the kid. To me, a good analogy would be a beautiful diamond ring that you were told used to belong to your grandmother, but in reality it turns out to be a well-made modern peice. The diamonds are still as shiny and the ring still as valuable, but really…which would upset you more if it was taken away, your grandmothers heirloom or your lovely cocktail ring?
By Gandalf, the White!
January 8, 2009 2:06 PM | Link to this
Mara, Devil’s advocate is a losing proposition here. EXPAT is spot on in her assessemnt that the STUPID [DUM BASS] needs an Butt thumpin’!!!! Children aren’t pets or toys!
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this
Jack -
slappers - no idea where it came from, but it basically means the “town bike” (everybody has had a ride)
Mara -
when someone adopts or fosters a child, they’re making the choice to be take up someone elses responsibility knowing that there would be no biological connection to previous generations. They get to make that choice because those kind of people want a child, any child, to love.
I hear what you’re saying, but once you’ve had the kid for 3 or 4 years (which was what happened in this case), you’ve changed him, rocked him, soothed him when he’s been scared, watched him take his first step … and on and on and on … and suddenly you feel like he’s not your kid anymore because you don’t share the same DNA?
if we were talking about the kid being 1 week old, I’d probably be there with you, but 3 or 4 years??? nope. dope slap. ;-)
By JokesOn
January 8, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this
My 2 cents on the issue:
I believe that there are two components to the issue of men/women which apply to both sexes. The hard wired part and the software part. The software (active thought) part can always override the hardwired part (non-hormone based instinct created over generations of socialization, passive thought), but it takes persistence - which most people have a very difficult time following through with; hence the confusion exhibited by men and women in more open/changing societies.
Most people flounder between the two, although not with the intention of presenting a double standard. Where as, what some have tried explaining is that Europeans have less of this conflict, but possibly less expansive growth.
What got me thinking about this hardwired part (not examples of mothering, but of social roles/behavior) is a friends adopted sheep dog. This dog had never been socialized to round up sheep by other dogs but will still perform that way because it is fact that over generations the behavior becomes hardwired.
That would explain the frustrations that occur when the hardwired part is not in agreement with the software part or when the software part is not much more that a notion that is not reinforced for many years. Many people simply never really decide, beyond simple thought, what they want to do and then practice it.
I do not believe there is a right/wrong approach, as long as you do not push it on others and you are up front and honest about your expectations; from your SO and yourself.
Devils Advocate: One area that I could argue “right/wrong” is when questioning the big picture: “what are you setting up for your kids in the future? Are you presenting an environment that will be in conflict with where the worlds is going? Are you furthering a mindset that is counter to the direction the world is going? And is all that fair to them?”
Hard questions.
By USinUK
January 8, 2009 2:31 PM | Link to this
I’m audi for the night … hasta la pasta!! have a good evening!!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 8, 2009 2:41 PM | Link to this
Hardwire a place were combat is cherished and a well placed burst from an automatic weapon can make a difference. We are a race of warriors and we shouldn’t forget this fact.
By JokesOn
January 8, 2009 2:52 PM | Link to this
Hardwire a place were combat is cherished and a well placed burst from an automatic weapon can make a difference. We are a race of warriors and we shouldn’t forget this fact.
So, like a pit bull, unless there is a war/dog fight, men should be locked in a cage? (actually you thought they should be shot, no?)
a well placed burst from an automatic weapon can make a difference. Like the 8 well placed bursts from an AK47 that took out innocent humans in a mall because a male kid was never taught how to override the hardwired part?
Just asking, ya know?
By Gandalf, the White!
January 8, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this
If he was in Afganistan he would have go a medal! Nope, I said there should be more war, not locking up of men! Are you n advocate of slavery? THAT’s Just SICK! The male kid simply needed a father that would teach him when to shoot and when not too, that’s simple! Divorce is the root of all evil, not combat. Oh, it’s hardly combat unless the enemy has the ability to strike back. Duh!
PLEASE DON’T MAKE ME REVERT TO CALLING YOU THE ELDEST OF 8TH GRADERS AGAIN! GLORY IS FLEETING, oh ONLY 8TH GRADER WITH A CAR!
By JokesOn
January 8, 2009 4:05 PM | Link to this
The male kid simply needed a father that would teach him when to shoot and when not too, that’s simple!
Right. What I said: active thought, not simply “We are a race of warriors and we shouldn’t forget this fact.”…for that is only one fact in the matter.
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 8:30 AM | Link to this
Friday! Friday! Friday!! woowoo!!!
hey, Sunshine … how is the Big Countdown going??? has the little one dropped, yet?
Frustrated … haven’t heard much from you this week, how are things in your world??
Gale … did you think about having a belated anniv celebration later in the spring??
Bruno and TOJ … hope we gave you guys some “food to think about” (as a friend’s father used to say)
Mara … Archie … where ya been? you guys have been mighty quiet this week …
how about a little Dusty Springfield to start our Friday …
Billy-Ray was a preacher’s son / and when his daddy would visit he’d come along / when they gathered around and started talkin’ / that’s when Billy would take me walkin’ / out through the back yard we’d go walkin’ / then he’d look into my eyes / lord knows to my surprise
the only one who could ever reach me / was the son of a preacher man / the only boy who could ever teach me / was the son of a preacher man / yes he was, he was, ooh, he was
By Gale
January 9, 2009 8:35 AM | Link to this
JokesOn and Gandalf, I sincerely appreciate both of your comments about the hardwire nature of behavior. While I firmly believe what I have said on the subject, I have a clearly one-sided view. I know it helps me to read your thoughtful (however weird on Gaandalf’s part) comments. I am strongly reminded about what I always say about house cats: Never forget a cat is a predator. It matters not that he has never had to hunt, it is in him at the cell level.
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 8:38 AM | Link to this
Well, Baby Bush pretty much matched his daddy’s unemployment rate leaving office … the Dept of Labor has announced that December’s unemployment rate stands at 7.2% (Papa Bush’s unemployment rate was 7.6% when leaving office).
buckle your seat belts, kids … current forecasts are for it to continue increasing to as high as 10% before the economy starts to improve …
By Gale
January 9, 2009 8:54 AM | Link to this
USinUK, re the anniversery. If we ever get to marry, maybe we will pick a different day. Nah, it is what it is. We would probably plan to do it on the same day. As it is, among the things I remember most are a broken down moving truck and freezing rain.
By American Woman
January 9, 2009 9:02 AM | Link to this
USinUK, how long do think hate mongers like Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Really, etc. will wait before blaming President Obama for the unemployment rate? Will it begin on Inauguration Day, or will they be respectful Americans and wait until 12:05 a.m. on January 21st?
Had a good laugh during this morning’s news. Governor Palin was whining about how the media treated her unfairly because she was a Republican, and that they would have been so much nicer to her if she’d run as a Democrat. Um… You mean like the way they were nice & fair (and not sexist at all!!) to Senator Clinton?
The BCS is a total popularity contest, fed by advertising & PR. For those of you who may not remember, the Florida Gators were beaten at home by Ole Miss. I’m just sayin’….
By Gandalf, the White!
January 9, 2009 9:03 AM | Link to this
Eldest of 8th Graders? WTF are you trying to say? Nothing? You are such a [DUM BASS!] Go on vacation again please!
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this
Gale …
As it is, among the things I remember most are a broken down moving truck and freezing rain.
haha … hopefully that’s a fond memory … I can just imagine Mr. USinUK and I in that scenario - and the “barney” that would ensue!! it would NOT be a day that we’d want to celebrate! ;-)
(Jack - unlike “slapper”, I can tell you that “barney” is Cockney rhyming slang - Barney Rubble = Trouble)
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this
Hi All!
USin-hey, Sunshine … how is the Big Countdown going??? has the little one dropped, yet? Count down is in FULL SWING (so is the pregnancy waddle, unfortunately, lol!) I am 36 weeks today! 4 weeks to go! I am actually having an appointment today to see if he has flipped, cross your fingers, we don’t want a sunny side up little one (aka, feet first, face forward)! I don’t think he has started his decent yet though, all his Kung Fu is still directly aimed at my ribs. Hubby finished the nursery and it is STUNNING! Quite the “boys” room, we made it in a Surf Shack theme, and had a friend that gave us used busted surf boards that hubby expertly made into supper cool shelves and wall art!
the only one who could ever reach me / was the son of a preacher man / the only boy who could ever teach me / was the son of a preacher man / yes he was, he was, ooh, he was—I am a preacher’s kid! You know what they say about the preacher’s daughter ;-)
But this song always tickles me b/c one day I walked into my brothers room (when he was like 12) to see him standing on his bed dancing and just belting this song out! He was so excited, he goes “THIS IS MY SONG!!” He still loves it! Always makes me smile!
By Mara
January 9, 2009 9:11 AM | Link to this
USinUK - where ya been?
LOL! I been WORKIN’! I’m busy trying to catch up on everything that piled up over the holidays. We worked the Monday and Tuesday before Christmas and the Monday and Tuesday before New Years and were off the rest of the time until this past Monday (the 5th). Got piles and piles of work…not that I’m complaining. I’m grateful that my department hasn’t been downsized as much as the rest of the company.
I hear what you’re saying, but once you’ve had the kid for 3 or 4 years…
I’m probably not the best judge on this because I have very little maternal instict…but IMHO the very worst years to be a parent would be those first few years. I do understand why someone might feel cheated if they’ve nurtured a child for those years, investing all those resources and all that time only to find out that the kid isn’t even theirs! But as I said, I’m probably not the best judge cuz I wouldn’t take one even if you paid me…unless, of course, you paid me enough to hire someone to raise it :^)
okay (sigh)…back to the grind. I’ll check back in around lunch.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 9, 2009 9:14 AM | Link to this
Gale, the wild and house cats in my neighborhood alway get in my bushes and kill the song birds. I get so mad at them! Always feathers on my porch during baby bird season! SAM I AM AND I DO NO LIKE CATS! :-)
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
AW -
how long will they wait??? it already started in November as they began to call our current economic kerfuffle the “Obama Recession”. November. 2 months before he is sworn in.
as for Palin - first of all, my favorite part of the video is the still you click on to watch it: a head-shot of Palin with Zeigler’s website “WhyObamaWon.com” as the title. yep. pretty much. I’d agree that McCain’s selection of Palin was what tipped the balance as people got to know her.
as for her … ummm … intriguing assertion that the media would have been SOOOOOOOOOOO much kinder to her had she run as Obama’s veep rather than McCain’s veep, I had to laugh. Could you imagine how the Right Wing spin machine would go into hyper-drive with the out-of-wedlock pregnant daughter AND the Wasilla debt increasing by millions on her watch … good gravy, Karl Rove would have thought that Cmas came early!!! (I want whatever she’s drinking, s’all I can say)
If she’s the future of the GOP, all I can say is (ahem) “WATB.”
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 9:18 AM | Link to this
Mr. Gandalf,
What is instinct?
It is not biological mechanics. Meaning it is not mechanics based on hormones that create an urge, it is a behavior that is hardwired from years of enforcement by the society.
That means that it is very probable that DNA and behavior is a recursive function, not static or one way.
That is what I believe to be the hurdle in societal growth, development and change; on a gender and non-gender level.
So, when you hear things like “she makes me feel like a man” or “woman,” what you are hearing is that the person enforces the chosen dominate part, be it the hardwired or software part.
Question to those who care to take it up. It is for illuminating purposes only. Paraphrase this sentence back to me:
“You should listen to your husband.”
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 9:20 AM | Link to this
USinUk
all I know is that if you need to have someone else make you “feel like a real man” (or real woman), then there are some serious issues that need to be dealth with …
LOL. Girl you are one nasty, backstabbing winch. You never miss the opportunity to turn a civil discussion into a reason to make a nasty attack. I’ll bet in reality, there is not a handful of people that would trust you as far as they could throw you. I was talking about American women in general, you never miss an opportunity to make it personal, bitter, hate filled and just nasty.
I’d like to post here again, but as long as you can’t control that urge to be nasty as hell whenever you want to be, I’ll just keep being the SOB that pops in, says what I want and then leaves, never even considering anything you say as of being of any importance.
And BTW, I’m more of a man than would ever put up with someone like you.
American Woman
Clinton did not have her child attacked on a daily basis with the most vile and untrue attacks, But why am I even trying? If you saw what was done to Palin by the press and still think she was treated fair, you are just too stupid to deal with.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 9:23 AM | Link to this
Gandolf
The eldest of 8th graders only vacation when he can charter a fishing boat during hurricanes. Season is over.
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 9:30 AM | Link to this
Question to those who care to take it up. It is for illuminating purposes only. Paraphrase this sentence back to me:
“You should listen to your husband.”
My take: “Good communication leads to a good relationship. Part of good communication is listening to your partner.”
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
My niece tried to come into the world butt-first (ended up being a Cesarian as they couldn’t turn her). But, if he’s kicking you in the ribs, that sounds like he’s heading the right way. The nursery sounds FAB! You just need some teddy bears wearing Hawaiian shirts to complete the theme (not to mention a poster of Blue Hawaii Elvis)
:-)
Glad to hear you’re doing well - just a few more weeks - woohoo!!! Meanwhile, how are both jobs doing? are you still happier with your second job? and what will that mean after the sprog makes his Grand Entrance??
Mara - GAH - you need to eeeeaaaaase into the new year - none of this rushing around! (like I can talk - it’s been crazy here this week). Glad to hear your department is doing well, though - fingers crossed that continues!
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this
Typical peanut gallery talk:
You never miss the opportunity to turn a civil discussion into a reason to make a nasty attack.
Followed by:
The eldest of 8th graders only vacation when he can charter a fishing boat during hurricanes. Season is over.
Hypocrisy is the most pronounced sign of immaturity.
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 9:33 AM | Link to this
Hey TOJ—Girl you are one nasty, backstabbing winch. You never miss the opportunity to turn a civil discussion into a reason to make a nasty attack.
The Pot AND the Kettle called, they wanted to let you know that your BLACK!
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 9:46 AM | Link to this
My take: Good communication leads to a good relationship. Part of good communication is listening to your partner.
Now paraphrase this:
“You should listen to your husband.”
(Just shows how sexist even the most subtle parts of our language is…no wonder we humans have difficulty when our words betray us unintentionally)
PS. Omelet was made and all is good.
By Mara
January 9, 2009 9:47 AM | Link to this
USinUK - Re: TOJ’s “all I know is that if you need to have someone else make you “feel like a real man” (or real woman), then there are some serious issues that need to be dealth with…LOL. Girl you are one nasty, backstabbing winch. You never miss the opportunity to turn a civil discussion into a reason to make a nasty attack…”
I don’t see any “attack” here. I think it’s only common sense that if you need someone else to validate your self or your sexuality…yo DO have serious issues that need to be dealt with.
TOJ - Clinton did not have her child attacked on a daily basis with the most vile and untrue attacks
“attacks” she could have nipped in the bud by releasing ANY documents that related to the pregnancy or birth. Instead she just whined about how ugly it all is and how mean the ‘liberals’ are. Face it, she’s a farm-league player trying to play in the big leagues. Your prima donna just wasn’t prepared for the scrutiny of the media spotlight. And just a by-the-by…conservative media was just as “vile” to St. Sarah as the MSM and liberal media.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 9:47 AM | Link to this
Sunshine
I don’t care what you think about me, but at least you agree that she is one nasty winch.
Joke
Take a vacation. I hear the fishing in Cancun is nice.
By Gale
January 9, 2009 9:50 AM | Link to this
Well done on the communication quiz, Sunshine.
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Girl you are one nasty, backstabbing winch. You never miss the opportunity to turn a civil discussion into a reason to make a nasty attack. I’ll bet in reality, there is not a handful of people that would trust you as far as they could throw you. I was talking about American women in general, you never miss an opportunity to make it personal, bitter, hate filled and just nasty.
winch?
As I said, ANYone who needs someone else to validate their manliness or womanliness needs to deal with some issues that have nothing to do with a second party (or the nationality thereof). This wasn’t personal towards you, but if you choose to take it that way, so be it.
I still wish you well with your Italian interest -
Clinton did not have her child attacked on a daily basis
Palin’s child (none of them, in fact) was never attacked. And I dare you to post one article where she is.
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this
And BTW, I’m more of a man than would ever put up with someone like you.…I’ll just keep being the SOB that pops in, says what I want and then leaves, never even considering anything you say
This is so funny to me! It’s like the jerk in high school that asks you out and if you say no, he turns around and shouts “I didn’t want to go out with you anyways!!!” yeah, what a charmer! Real women, grown up women, woman that have dated a few jerks/a**holes/users want a nice guy! It’s just that you have to learn that all the pretty packaging is not what really counts, what counts is how he treats you when he had a really rough day, how he speaks to you if you have hurt his feelings/manhood, and how he views a partnership. Real men would never ever say to a lady “I am more of a man that would ever…blah..blah…blah..you!!!”
But you know, I guess all of your post isn’t bad though, it helps to know you are a self proclaimed SOB, cause as they say “knowing is half the battle!”
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this
Mara
We all like to be made to feel more manly if we are men and womanly if a person is a woman. It is common speech among every race and culture of people since the beginning of time. She makes me feel like a man is simply a compliment and not a reflection on the person’s manliness. the same can be said for a woman who says that he makes her feel like a real woman. Hell, I’ve heard it in advertisements and so have you.
At least that is the way it is in the normal world where you don’t have a bunch of bored hens setting around, being paid to be working but stealing time from their employers to talk on the internet, being as vile as they can in order to attempt to make themselves feel better about their worthless lives.
As far as Palin’s release of her child’s birth records, those records have been public information since the child was born. Any reporter who was interested in the real truth could have gone to the public records and verified anything they wanted. So once again, you speak of things that you know nothing about.
But again, I can’t counter a lifetime of indoctrination and I sure can’t make you any more fair and I certainly can’t make you any smarter, so please, continue. Join the sheep that agree with what they are told by the liberal media. Be what you are and revel in it. Be proud of your hate, your ignorance and your complete indoctrination. It’s all you have.
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 10:10 AM | Link to this
Palin’s child (none of them, in fact) was never attacked. And I dare you to post one article where she is.
But if you factor in the type of person that needs to be validated so much, every question or challenge of ideas is an attack.
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this
Jokeson:
PS. Omelet was made and all is good.-sorry confused a bit, as in: the omelet is in the kitchen and will be served in due time, or as in: we closed the kitchen and won’t be serving any food today?
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Quick cut and paste that for anyone with three numbers in their IQ would understand how unfairly she and her children were treated, but I understand this ia a waste of time. If you had been smart enough to see it, you would have seen it last summer.
* In today’s “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” moment, MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell, currently miles away from her three children that are all under the age of two, questioned whether or not Sarah Palin would be neglecting her four-month-old if she became vice president. * US Magazine headlines its cover: ”Babies, Lies and Scandal” * Less than an hour after reporter David Gregory incorrectly huffed on Wednesday’s “Today” show that the media have not questioned whether Sarah Palin can balance motherhood with serving as vice president, NBC correspondent Amy Robach explicitly did just that during a segment on how moms were reacting to the Alaska governor. Operating under a loaded either/or premise, she derided, “The broader question if Sarah Palin becomes vice president, will she be shortchanging her kids or will she be shortchanging the country?“ * Republicans really hold racist double standards when it involves teenage pregnancies and marriages. This according to Joy Behar, who shared such a sentiment on the September 3 edition of “The View.” Discussing the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol, Behar expressed sympathy for the father and fiancé, Levi Johnston.Behar exclaimed it’s “the end of his life” because “he’s married at 17″ (Johnston is actually 18, which is the legal difference between a child and an adult) When Elisabeth Hasselbeck asked “why isn’t that the beginning of another [life]?” Joy Behar, implying Republicans are racist, rebutted “if this was a black teenage couple, you wouldn’t be saying it so easily. Not you, but the Republican party would be all over that.” Behar subsequently added “they’re white, they’re Christian. Everybody loves them on the right wing.” * Rod Lurie, the liberal creator of the President-Hillary-imagining ABC TV series “Commander in Chief,” thinks the Sarah Palin pick makes him look prescient. “I think Geena [Davis] and I need to be paid royalties by the Republicans.” “People who understand politics know anything is possible,” he said. “Picking a woman is an absolute strategic idea from McCain’s point of view. He’s not talking about governing right now. The idea of this woman actually facing down [Vladimir] Putin and negotiating with [Dmitry] Medvedev is idiotic.” * Sure, one of the first inquiries from CNN’s John Roberts was, “Children with Down’s syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?” * Sure, ABC News correspondent David Wright said, “In small groups, Palin can seem like the young, trophy running mate.” * And sure, the Washington Post’s Lisa de Moraes did write, “John McCain will have to do better than naming Tina Fey his vice presidential choice.” * And perhaps it may have appeared to be sexism when liberal talk show host Ed Schultz declared a “bimbo alert.” And admittedly, liberal columnist Richard Cohen compared McCain naming her to Caligula naming his horse to be a consul and a priest. And yes, even Fox News interviewed her dentist about her smile. * Sure, on MSNBC, the phrases “daughter’s pregnancy” and “Palin’s judgment” were used in conjunction so many times, liberal bloggers who disagree with Palin were grinding their teeth. * Sure, Maureen Dowd calls her the “Vice in Go-Go Boots.” * Sure, the Baltimore Sun’s Susan Reimer dismissed her as “a skirt on the ticket.” * And when Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton declared that Palin would make a “pretty fragile” president, one might be left scratching the head at that label, knowing that Palin hunts caribou moose. But clearly, sexism could not have been what prompted that unflattering stereotypical adjective.By USinUK
January 9, 2009 10:17 AM | Link to this
As far as Palin’s release of her child’s birth records, those records have been public information since the child was born.
and no REPORTER ever questioned the birth of her youngest child. Andrew Sullivan did - a BLOGGER.
(but, we don’t expect you to ever let the facts get in the way of a good delusion)
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 10:26 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Quick cut and paste that for anyone with three numbers in their IQ would understand how unfairly she and her children were treated
and nowhere in that laundry list is an attack ON HER CHILD. Yes, there were loads of people who questioned ST. SARAH on her ability to care for her kids, especially an infant with DS - there were people who questioned her firm belief in abstinence only when confronted with the reality of having a teenage daughter pregnant out of wedlock.
NOWHERE in there is an attack on the children.
game. set. match.
Clinton did not have her child attacked on a daily basis
Just as a refresher, why don’t you go back and listen to a few old Rush Limbaugh recordings from the 1990s and hear how he attacked Chelsea Clinton’s looks, if you’d like to know what an attack on a CHILD looks like
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 10:30 AM | Link to this
PS. Omelet was made and all is good.-sorry confused a bit, as in: the omelet is in the kitchen and will be served in due time, or as in: we closed the kitchen and won’t be serving any food today?
Neither. She had the baby and all is good.
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 10:30 AM | Link to this
We all like to be made to feel more manly if we are men and womanly if a person is a woman.—I call BS on this. Just my 2 cents but personally my “womanhood” comes from with in. (Which I know is what USin and Mara where trying to say). It is a form of confidence, and confidence is always sexy, from a man or a woman. If you don’t “feel like a man/woman” other people can not “Make” you feel a certain way or they shouldn’t be given to power to “make” you feel a certain way. If you get dressed up and feel good/smell good/ look good you should know that weather anyone is there to tell you or not. What you hear in advertisements is a bunch of BS, it is made and written to manipulate you into feeling you need something. When if you are confident in yourself you don’t need someone to compliment you, it may be nice but it isn’t a requirement.
Again, I think real men who are confident in their manhood would not EVER insult random women. I think a gentleman as well as a lady conducts themselves with a higher degree of class than just making blanket insults about an entire gender.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this
USinUK
And Andrew Sulliven was given an international voice by YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA. Exactly how dumb are you, journalism major? What semantic nonsense will you next attempt to make excuses for her unfair treatment?
This is pointless. For one thing, as I predicted, the liberal media is now examining their treatment of her and have concluded that they might have been bias, but of course according to you guys, they are wrong. She deserved everything she got.
You are just completely indoctrinated, bitter people. You voted for Obama for all the things that he is now promising NOT to do because anyone with any brains would know that a US President CANNOT do what he promised. He would be the worst president in history. so he is continuing most of Bush’s approaches. It is so funny watch you guys defending Bush’s policies now that they are being promised by Obama. You people are clueless.
And BTW, I LOVE the fact that an anti-abortion Christian minister is giving the invocation during his swearing in ceremony. In case you haven’t noticed, your man just spit on every hysterical liberal that voted for him.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Game set match? What a joke.
So you think that Tina Feye talking about how marriage should be between two non-consenting children was leaving her children out of it? Whenever she was attacked, she was usually attacked BECAUSE of her family, you indoctrinated fool. As I said, if you were smart enough to see it, you would have seen it in September.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 10:45 AM | Link to this
USinUk
And BTW. Rush Limbaughh does not claim to be unbiased media like the people attacking Palin. Every post you write about the media shows the value of a journalism degree.
Here again, i understand my limitations. Revel in your hate, your indoctrination, your unfairness and your unwarranted arrogance. It’s what you were taught during your indoctrination and you must have paid very close attention to the teachers.
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 10:47 AM | Link to this
Since you are SOOOO offended about people making “attacks” on other people’s children how about the one from Mr. McCain:
“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Earlier this month, at a Republican Senate fund-raiser, McCain told a downright nasty joke making fun of Janet Reno, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton.
The fact that McCain had made the tasteless joke was reported in major newspapers, as was the vain attempt by his press secretary to initially deny what McCain had done. But in several major newspapers, the joke itself was kept a secret. When McCain subsequently apologized to President Clinton, the Washington Post, in its personality section, noted the apology but said the joke “was too vicious to print.”
The Los Angeles Times, in its Life & Style section, provided an oblique rendering of the joke that did not fully convey its ugliness. When Maureen Dowd penned a column in the New York Times about the joke, she wrote that McCain “is so revered by the press that his disgusting jape was largely nudged under the rug.” But Dowd chose not to relay the joke, either.
The joke did appear in McCain’s hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, and the Associated Press did report the joke in full, so everyone in the press had access to McCain’s words. But by censoring themselves, the Post, the Times and others helped McCain deflect flak and preserved his status as a Republican presidential contender.
Though no tape of McCain’s quip has yet emerged, this is what he reportedly said:
*"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?* *Because her father is Janet Reno."*McCain’s two-liner conveys some interesting insights into what he considers humorous (lesbianism, a young woman’s physical appearance), particularly since it was delivered to a Republican crowd. Remember, this is the party that champions pro-family values.
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
And Andrew Sulliven was given an international voice by YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA. Exactly how dumb are you, journalism major? What semantic nonsense will you next attempt to make excuses for her unfair treatment?
and, if you bothered to get beyond the US magazine headline, you’d see that the article completely debunked the story. as did any news coverage of it.
again, you still can’t show me any attacks on HER CHILDREN, which was your original point. Pointed questions about St. Sarah, absolutely - as ANYONE running for national office should expect.
But, no attacks on her children. NONE. no matter what the voices in your head are telling you.
game. set. match.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this
Sunshine
American Women is not an entire gender. But a visit to this place certainly enforces everything I have said.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this
Lifetime network polled a group of smart, informed women. apprently they didn’t call anyone that posts here:
A majority of American women voted for President-elect Barack Obama, but that doesn’t mean they liked how the female candidates were treated during the 2008 campaign.
Women surveyed in a poll released this morning by Lifetime Networks as a part of its “Every Woman Counts” campaign said they feel coverage of Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was too negative and focused excessively on her looks and wardrobe.
That goes for coverage of her female counterpart on the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton, as well.
“It was a post-gender election in terms of women looking beyond their gender as voters, but not in how women believe that male and female candidates were treated differently,” said pollster Kellyanne Conway of WomanTrend.
Pollsters from Lake Research Partners and WomanTrend, a division of the polling company, inc., spoke with 600 women across the U.S. between November 21 and 24, asking about the impact of the recent economic downturn as well as their impressions of the presidential election.
According to the survey data, 64 percent said they felt coverage of Palin was more negative than that of any other candidate. When asked about Clinton’s coverage, 31 percent felt hers too was relatively more negative.
About half said they would have liked to see more discussion of Palin’s policy stances.
These women told pollsters they remain optimistic about women in politics. Clinton’s and Palin’s presence in the race was a “step forward” for women, and it provided encouragement that a woman would earn one of the top offices within their lifetimes.
But on issues of being taken seriously by voters and by the media, they said women still lag behind dramatically. Results showed 79 percent saying it is easier for a male candidate to be taken seriously by voters, while only 5 percent believe it is easier for a female candidate.
Even so, as Obama continued to build his Cabinet, 67 percent said he should only consider qualifications, not gender, when selecting his incoming secretaries - thought Clinton’s placement as Secretary of State earned strong support from survey participants.
Women in the poll were also asked to look to their next first lady, Michelle Obama, and their expectations for her. When asked about how women would like to see her role take shape, 49 percent supported her getting involved in several issues, such as education, work-life balance and health care.
Another 38 percent said they think she should focus on her role as a wife and mother, which Obama has said she’d like to do doing her first year.
By Gale
January 9, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this
Troll, folks.
New topic is open.
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 11:02 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Revel in your hate, your indoctrination, your unfairness and your unwarranted arrogance.
you’re soaking in it.
as for Tina Fey … I hate to be the one who breaks it to you but … (speaking sotto voce) … she’s not REALLY in the media … “Weekend Update” is on Saturday Night Live, a COMEDY program
now, would you like to show me Brian Williams saying something like that or Chris Matthews or anyone from the WaPo, NYT or other major NEWS outlet … ???
yeah. thought not.
Whenever she was attacked, she was usually attacked BECAUSE of her family
wow. you really believe that, don’t you.
she was questioned for not having even the slightest understanding of foreign affairs - that had nothing to do with her family.
she was questioned for not having even the slightest understanding of what the VP even DOES - that had nothing to do with her family.
she was questioned for her actions as mayor - that had nothing to do with her family.
she was questioned for her advocacy of wolf hunting from helicopters - that had nothing to do with her family.
and that’s just off the top of my head …
please, TOJ. get some help. you really see to need it.
she was
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Let’s get this straight:
You are actually claiming that Palin’s family was never used in a single attack against her and that she was treated fairly by the mainstream media. LOL!!!
And now you expect me to find story after story for you to judge the fairness of a media that you have always said was completely fair. LOL!! I just posted a poll and a list of unfiar stories, many of them involving her family but you still insist on stomping your feet and insisting that she was treated fairly.
LOL!!
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 11:19 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
my last post on this board -
Whenever she was attacked, she was usually attacked BECAUSE of her family, you indoctrinated fool
and I just listed a quick list of the times when she was questioned and criticized that had nothing to do with her family - and that was just the top 4 … I could have added her lack of knowledge about Supreme Court rulings, her response to “what do you read”, her lack of understanding about the original TARP legislation - none of that had to do with her family.
ST. SARAH was criticized - not her children - because she wasn’t ready for the job.
too bad your extreme hatred can’t see past that.
and, now, I’m off to the other board. join me or don’t.
btw. a winch is a hook attached to a long cord and uses a motor to pull heavy objects.
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 11:41 AM | Link to this
btw. a winch is a hook attached to a long cord and uses a motor to pull heavy objects.
Maybe he used the right word…
You keep having to lug his blockhead around since he has no ability to think critically himself.