|
Wow. They are really trying to get women back in the kitchen, eh? Goes to show you their strategy. If it doesn't succeed, double down again and again.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
quote:“Financial independence is a great thing,” she writes, “but you can’t take your paycheck to bed with you." It's a real shame it's physically possible to have sex with someone other than your husband.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Breitbart notes that Obama is attending Mandela's funeral, but did not attend Thatcher's funeral, probably because he hates women I'm guessing. Abraham Van Helsing had already driven a stake through her heart and stuffed her mouth full of garlic and silver coins, the undertaker made sure that she was buried face-down and the coffin sealed in cement. Obama didn't need to go, he just sent the Secret Service to oversee the burial to ensure that the job was done right. I assume that he's going to Mandela's funeral because Mandela was an amazing person who changed the world for the better, not to battle the undead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Abraham Van Helsing had already driven a stake through her heart and stuffed her mouth full of garlic and silver coins, the undertaker made sure that she was buried face-down and the coffin sealed in cement. Obama didn't need to go, he just sent the Secret Service to oversee the burial to ensure that the job was done right. I'm not going to lie: you made me laugh with the Thatcher thing after a post I made in the Thatcher-wasn't-really-a-Wicth thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Abraham Van Helsing had already driven a stake through her heart and stuffed her mouth full of garlic and silver coins, the undertaker made sure that she was buried face-down and the coffin sealed in cement. Obama didn't need to go, he just sent the Secret Service to oversee the burial to ensure that the job was done right. God drat it, don't tell me you forgot to bury her under a crossroads. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
I'm going to say this is more insulting to women than to men, but the line "a man’s identity is inextricably linked to his paycheck" is still pretty drat insulting. Oddly enough there are a heck of a lot of other things that play into my identity than just my job, and I'd be terrified of or at least concerned about a person for whom their job was the whole of their being. Also the thing where feminists say, "You should have a choice about this," and people hear "You should hate everything about the traditional thing and do the opposite always and kill all the men." I don't know of any other philosophy that gets so consistently, desperately mischaracterized as feminism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
What percentage of families in this country can live on just one paycheck anymore? VV 'Sup, bro?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
What I find funny about it is if the right hadn't done everything they could to drive down wages and kill unions then maybe both people in a household wouldn't have to work and women could still have the choice to stay home and cook and clean! So could men! Edit: Dr. Faustus posted:What percentage of families in this country can live on just one paycheck anymore? Beaten by seconds!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I'm going to say this is more insulting to women than to men, but the line "a man’s identity is inextricably linked to his paycheck" is still pretty drat insulting. Oddly enough there are a heck of a lot of other things that play into my identity than just my job, and I'd be terrified of or at least concerned about a person for whom their job was the whole of their being. It has to do with a lot of American culture, especially evangelical culture, going back to the Puritans who followed scripture as if it were law and see it as perfectly fine to shove it on everybody. I forget exactly where it is but a few places in the Old Testament allude to women literally being property and inferior to men. There were even passages to the effect of "men are big and strong and hairy so OF COURSE God wants men to run the show. Women are weak and frail and hairless so they shouldn't leave the house and care for babies because the outside world is scary and dangerous and terrible." Men being their paychecks is prosperity gospel poo poo, which more puritanical colonists ate up like mad. It goes back to the whole "a man must work to eat" bullshit as well as the simple fact that raw greed is what caused a lot of people to come over despite what the history books tell you. Somebody who has more money is OBVIOUSLY a harder worker and because hard work pleases God the wealthy are OBVIOUSLY better in God's eyes. Plus, everything happens because God said so so God decides who is wealthy and who isn't. You saw that come up a lot in the 19th century as well, which is what contemporary conservatives seem to want to return to because I guess life was perfect and nobody was poor or miserable or dying of cholera or a slave or anything in the 1800's, nosiree! The thing with feminism is that there are some people that identify as feminists but don't get what "equality" means but yeah this right here is a case of a massive slant being put on something. No, Fox News, allowing women to become educated, have jobs, own property, and not BE property doesn't hurt men. It doesn't. It isn't destroying the sanctity of marriage, it isn't tearing apart the fabric of society. Go home Fox News, you're drunk. Of course, what the far religious right won't tell you is that they do genuinely believe that feminism threatens "traditional marriage" because it does threaten what they view as "traditional marriage." That, of course, being that women MUST get married while they are 18 and be 100% submissive to their husbands in all things. If you look at traditional marriage as it's outlined in the Bible it's actually a downright lovely deal for women. A woman's property becomes owned by her husband, she can't gently caress anybody else but he can, he's the head of the household so she must do what she says, and so forth. Of course people are trying to tear down that type of "traditional marriage." That type of traditional marriage is incredibly unequal and is less like a partnership and more like slavery. edit: To get an idea of how bonkers some of the stuff in the Bible is there's a passage that says a man can sell his daughters to other men as house slaves if he wants to. A man who OWNS a girl as a house slave can force her to marry him. Why yes, I would say that "traditional Christian marriage as the Bible outlines it" sounds pretty awful. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:Also the thing where feminists say, "You should have a choice about this," and people hear "You should hate everything about the traditional thing and do the opposite always and kill all the men." I don't know of any other philosophy that gets so consistently, desperately mischaracterized as feminism. They probably look at their own ideology and assume their opposition simply subscribes to the exact opposite with the same virulence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:They probably look at their own ideology and assume their opposition simply subscribes to the exact opposite with the same virulence. See also: conservatives who say liberals want to replace religion with the state because they can't imagine someone not worshiping at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Abraham Van Helsing had already driven a stake through her heart and stuffed her mouth full of garlic and silver coins, the undertaker made sure that she was buried face-down and the coffin sealed in cement. Obama didn't need to go, he just sent the Secret Service to oversee the burial to ensure that the job was done right. There's something very Laundry Files about this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Go home FOX News, you're drunk. I should note you really don't have to go back to the Bible for this, my example's come from the UK but I can't imagine the US was radically different. The whole birth of the feminist movement wasn't just based around getting the vote, it was the fact that up until near the 20th century women were still pretty much treated as property once they got married. John Stuart Mill made the point that long after we'd abolished slavery as an inhuman evil, we still gave women roughly the same legal rights as slaves (though he makes the obvious concession that the treatment of women was a fuckload better). That's the kind of poo poo they want to bring back, these are people who's only real objection to slavery would be how well the slaves are treated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I should note you really don't have to go back to the Bible for this, my example's come from the UK but I can't imagine the US was radically different. The whole birth of the feminist movement wasn't just based around getting the vote, it was the fact that up until near the 20th century women were still pretty much treated as property once they got married. John Stuart Mill made the point that long after we'd abolished slavery as an inhuman evil, we still gave women roughly the same legal rights as slaves (though he makes the obvious concession that the treatment of women was a fuckload better). That's the kind of poo poo they want to bring back, these are people who's only real objection to slavery would be how well the slaves are treated. But 98% of slaves have refrigerators and microwaves!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I should note you really don't have to go back to the Bible for this, my example's come from the UK but I can't imagine the US was radically different. The whole birth of the feminist movement wasn't just based around getting the vote, it was the fact that up until near the 20th century women were still pretty much treated as property once they got married. John Stuart Mill made the point that long after we'd abolished slavery as an inhuman evil, we still gave women roughly the same legal rights as slaves (though he makes the obvious concession that the treatment of women was a fuckload better). That's the kind of poo poo they want to bring back, these are people who's only real objection to slavery would be how well the slaves are treated. In the case of America it traces back to theocratic government based on biblical law. I don't know much about the UK but in the US a lot of our culture comes from groups like the Puritans who left Europe because it wasn't fundamentalist enough. What we got taught in history class was that it was for "religious freedom" because they were escaping persecution but, in a lot of cases, they set up colonies that were absolutely intolerant of any outside views. You were a member of the local church and believed the right things or you were cast out, punished, jailed, or tried as a witch, depending on the year and the location. Protestantism was on the rise in Europe and there were those that thought that this was wrong. If memory serves there were people that were abandoning Europe because they believed God was going to rain fire on it very very soon because of how much the Catholic Church was weakening. The Church was losing political power and Christianity was fracturing into all of its sects while other religions were becoming increasingly tolerable. As Europe became more secular some of the most fundie types left and came here, which is where our current evangelical movement stems from. Which is, of course, very influential among conservatives and why there is so much opposition to certain things. This group is also why Fox News is so damned popular. Also in the case of America our feminism, as far as I know, primarily grew out of the suffrage movement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:
It's shocking to read about some of the racist suffragettes who were irate that "even negro men" could vote and they couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:See also: conservatives who say liberals want to replace religion with the state because they can't imagine someone not worshiping at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I guess those people just can't wrap their minds around the fact that most American liberals are Christian too. Christianity is declining in America, especially among liberals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Didn't feminism grow out of the prohibition movement?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:In the case of America it traces back to theocratic government based on biblical law. I don't know much about the UK but in the US a lot of our culture comes from groups like the Puritans who left Europe because it wasn't fundamentalist enough. What we got taught in history class was that it was for "religious freedom" because they were escaping persecution but, in a lot of cases, they set up colonies that were absolutely intolerant of any outside views. You were a member of the local church and believed the right things or you were cast out, punished, jailed, or tried as a witch, depending on the year and the location. Protestantism was on the rise in Europe and there were those that thought that this was wrong. If memory serves there were people that were abandoning Europe because they believed God was going to rain fire on it very very soon because of how much the Catholic Church was weakening. The Church was losing political power and Christianity was fracturing into all of its sects while other religions were becoming increasingly tolerable. As Europe became more secular some of the most fundie types left and came here, which is where our current evangelical movement stems from. Which is, of course, very influential among conservatives and why there is so much opposition to certain things. This group is also why Fox News is so damned popular. Holy Crap, that explains it all! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Didn't feminism grow out of the prohibition movement? The early suffragettes and the temperance movement were a part of the same package, but they gradually became decoupled throughout the 20's and 30's. Part of that had to do with the saloon culture (and raging alcoholism) of post-Civil War America, but it was also seen as a major contributing factor to domestic violence. Ken Burns did a six part piece on Prohibition which covers quite a bit of the campaign for the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The early suffragettes and the temperance movement were a part of the same package, but they gradually became decoupled throughout the 20's and 30's. Part of that had to do with the saloon culture (and raging alcoholism) of post-Civil War America, but it was also seen as a major contributing factor to domestic violence. It is only three parts long unfortunately  I loving love Ken Burns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
He's apparently a dick to work with, but he makes some good pichurs. I was going to post about the relationship with temperance unions, but was beaten. I can't recall, but I recall thinking that documentary was based off of the book Last Call. Could've just been a coincidence that they came out about the same time, though. Anyway, if you google up Last Call there are some great interviews with the author where he discusses some of this stuff and tells entertaining stories about Carrie Nation and how drug stores became huge in America and what not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves there were people that were abandoning Europe because they believed God was going to rain fire on it very very soon because of how much the Catholic Church was weakening. All of the major pilgramages to the United States were actually Protestant, and usually Angelican offshoots at that. Those guys did not give the slightest loving poo poo for the Pope. The only major catholic colony was Maryland, which was because Queen Mary herself was catholic and they had her patronage. Edit: the Puritans in particular left because of Mary's ascension to the throne. They were very specifically reformist in nature. Eikre fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:In the case of America it traces back to theocratic government based on biblical law. I don't know much about the UK but in the US a lot of our culture comes from groups like the Puritans who left Europe because it wasn't fundamentalist enough. What we got taught in history class was that it was for "religious freedom" because they were escaping persecution but, in a lot of cases, they set up colonies that were absolutely intolerant of any outside views. You were a member of the local church and believed the right things or you were cast out, punished, jailed, or tried as a witch, depending on the year and the location. Protestantism was on the rise in Europe and there were those that thought that this was wrong. If memory serves there were people that were abandoning Europe because they believed God was going to rain fire on it very very soon because of how much the Catholic Church was weakening. The Church was losing political power and Christianity was fracturing into all of its sects while other religions were becoming increasingly tolerable. As Europe became more secular some of the most fundie types left and came here, which is where our current evangelical movement stems from. Which is, of course, very influential among conservatives and why there is so much opposition to certain things. This group is also why Fox News is so damned popular. The Puritans were protestants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:The Puritans were protestants. It's also kind of wrong to call them theocratic. True, they wanted only Protestantism to be the religion of the land, but they also did not like the idea of the government (in their case the king of England) telling them how they should worship, especially if the form of worship he ascribed contained trappings of the Catholic church. It wasn't until they began immigrating to the New World that they took on a more theocratic style, and even that you can't really fault them for considering that was the whole point of coming to America. Darkman Fanpage fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Christianity is declining in America, especially among liberals. That would actually be hard to tell because liberal Christians don't give a poo poo about attendance, have high standards as to what constitutes piety, were not brainwashed, and hate to do anything that can even be interpreted as aiding/showing support for fundies. See also unbaptized ethnic Catholics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
There's also a lot of people that just kind of answer those polls based on grandma taking them to church on Easter and Christmas. Atheism is a classification for people who've actively made a choice. There's a lot of path of least resistance Christians who don't care about religion or spirituality so much. It's gonna be a long long time before people identify as atheist in any kind of significant numbers. The catch-22 is that most of the people who care that much about religion actually subscribe to a religion. I know the number of self-described atheists probably has risen in recent years, but I think it's going to hit a hard cap at the small number of people motivated enough to care about religion despite being atheists. Church attendance and likelihood of identifying as a member of a specific church are probably better metrics overall. I would bet people lie like hell about their attendance, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
Eikre posted:All of the major pilgramages to the United States were actually Protestant, and usually Angelican offshoots at that. Those guys did not give the slightest loving poo poo for the Pope. The only major catholic colony was Maryland, which was because Queen Mary herself was catholic and they had her patronage. And they became the Congregationalists, who are on the more liberal end of mainline American Protestantism. Fundamentalist Christianity as we think of it today is a product of the late 19th century, largely coming from the rural and itinerant camp preaching circuits influenced by the Millerite wing of the Second Great Awakening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Didn't feminism grow out of the prohibition movement? No, not at all. For example, the Seneca Falls Convention was in 1848, long before the prohibition movement became a thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:It's also kind of wrong to call them theocratic. True, they wanted only Protestantism to be the religion of the land, but they also did not like the idea of the government (in their case the king of England) telling them how they should worship, especially if the form of worship he ascribed contained trappings of the Catholic church. I can't remember the title, but Sarah Vowell wrote a book about the pilgrims that was honestly surprising in how progressive they were in certain areas. I recommend getting it as an audiobook because her voice is dreamy. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:I can't remember the title, but Sarah Vowell wrote a book about the pilgrims that was honestly surprising in how progressive they were in certain areas. I recommend getting it as an audiobook because her voice is dreamy. http://www.amazon.com/Wordy-Shipmates-Sarah-Vowell/dp/B0043RT94Y
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
Echoing the earlier post about the impossibility of surviving on one income stream and raising a child. I'd like to have a kid that experiences the same level of prosperity that I did as a child: my mom stayed home to raise the kids and keep the home in order and my dad earned enough for us to always have food, new clothes, and books. I already see that as a long shot in a two-income family. Having a kid and just one income stream means the kid gets to grow up with shabby clothes and eating ramen for dinner every night. And then the Fox News types will shake their fists - "lazy poors!" I actually would like to have a kid but economically it just won't happen. According to demographic trends I'm not the only one. For all the screaming fox can do about women, they're wrong on two counts. The lack of stay-at-home moms among my generation is due not to women flaunting their ill-gotten freedom, but due mainly to men, the 1% class war waging bankster types. Furthermore they are wrong about men, perpetuating this irritating idea that men are simple and lack complexity and compassion. I find this to be one of the most damaging memes perpetuated by the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:Echoing the earlier post about the impossibility of surviving on one income stream and raising a child. I'd like to have a kid that experiences the same level of prosperity that I did as a child: my mom stayed home to raise the kids and keep the home in order and my dad earned enough for us to always have food, new clothes, and books. I already see that as a long shot in a two-income family. Having a kid and just one income stream means the kid gets to grow up with shabby clothes and eating ramen for dinner every night. And then the Fox News types will shake their fists - "lazy poors!" One of the more depressing things I think about all day everyday is how fortunate it is that I can keep my wife and two kids doing pretty well on a single salary. It is a real luxury that I just don't see even amongst the higher earners in the town I am living in now. And even as someone in the top 97% of earners, we can get pretty tight if we don't stick to a budget. I know, I know, well to do guy complaining about how hard it is to have a good job  but think- I am the earliest of the millenials at age 30 and not even in the $110s per year (and have probably peaked at earning potential for a long while, too) and I am at the 97 percentile. That it takes someone making it into such a high percentile before they can raise that ideal family of four with a house and a dog and a picket fence shows how hosed up society is. I want people in retail to do the same. I want burger flippers and janitors to have the same opportunity for a family life that I have. Things are so hosed up.I can't guarantee my own retirement or my kids' college tuition w/o needing student loans either. The American Dream is functionally impossible even for those who are doing well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
I find when it comes to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News that FN has the most baffling Featured stories
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I find when it comes to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News that FN has the most baffling Featured stories "Daughtry" is still a thing? Dude made Nickelback sound original. The lowest common denominator has some of the worst taste in stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
ErIog posted:There's also a lot of people that just kind of answer those polls based on grandma taking them to church on Easter and Christmas. Atheism is a classification for people who've actively made a choice. There's a lot of path of least resistance Christians who don't care about religion or spirituality so much. It's gonna be a long long time before people identify as atheist in any kind of significant numbers. Pretty much. If pressed I would probably identify as a Christian in a poll even though I don't think I've been to church in nearly a decade now. In reality I consider myself more of a unitarian or a deist than anything at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
I think people already self identify as atheist in significant numbers though there are many who won't do so publicly. I lie and tell parents of students I am christian and go to church because if I don't, I don't get hired. Those poor christians being discriminated against though
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
So Limbaugh was going on about how capitalism has done more for the poor than Catholicism by comparing dollar amounts donated. Because, you know, cutting a check to get tax deductions is better than an international organization whose members spend a good deal of time directly ministering to the poor. Then some poor guy called into Dennis Miller and said he was grateful that rich people were willing to take risks and invest their money to provide jobs for blue collar guys like him. The glorious, benevolent wealthy. gently caress conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Damnit. I legit miss old Dennis Miller.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg2vM_Fp8MU Whenever Norm was a guest, it was literally can't miss TV. At least we still have Colbert and Stewart 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 22:26
|
|