Letters to the Editor
MWise
Published Letters: 253 Editor's Choice: 19
-
Cheap labor, but not the way that Caitlin probably meant it
[Read the article: The "marriage penalty" kicks the bucket]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that cheap labor has helped middle class women spend less time at home and more time earning a paycheck. But it's not the labor of a nanny, maid, or housekeeper...all of which are probably out of the reach of most middle class working women. It's the labor that went into making cheaper and more efficient appliances like dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, vacuums, etc. It's also that our spouses are now helping out on doing the household chores. I'd also say that our standards in cleanliness have probably lessened to some extent. We just aren't putting as much energy into doing things that our mothers did, like polishing silver, sewing our own clothes, making bread from scratch, etc. We also eat out a lot more than our parents did, that's in thanks to cheaper food and the rise of the "neighborhood family restaurant." Middle class families are probably more likely to use day care or pre-school instead of a nanny, but I'm not that the class (or wage) gap between the providers of this care is that much different than the parents of their charges.
Upper class women have always relied on the domestic labor of lower class women (and men); that really hasn't changed much. What has changed is that some of these women instead of quitting their jobs post-marriage and doing volunteer work or entertaining (like their mothers and grandmothers) are staying in their careers. The source of the labor pool has just changed over the past two generations from blacks and lower class immigrants from Europe to new immigrants from South/Central America and Asia. Rich men and women have ALWAYS been sheltered from performing low-pay labor and domestic chores...that's what makes them UPPER CLASS (duh).
-
Correct me if I'm wrong
[Read the article: Learning from multiple abortions]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But I'm pretty sure that the US gov't does not allow the use of tax dollars to fund abortions. Aren't there laws also forbidding the use of tax dollars for family planning clinics that refer patients to abortion providers or provide abortion services along with things like birth control, prenatal care, mammograms, etc? If so, I just want every single person here that posted that they are sick of paying for abortions with their tax dollars to retract their statements. Okay? (I'm talking to you, Katherine Sullivan!)
As far as the "Left" losing ground because they refuse to talk about sexual responsibility, I call bullsh*t. It's organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood that have been pushing realistic sex ed and birth control access and research. The "Right" for the most part has blocked all of these things and have stopped funding to clinics that help provide women and families real help with pregnancy prevention and family planning. Their only solution is to tell kids to just say no to sex. Well that really doesn't help the multitude of adult men and women that don't want to deny their sexuality until menopause or the married couples that don't want to abstain until they can afford to raise a child or until their marriage is stable enough to withstand the impact of a new baby. What about the family may never be able to have a child if they can't get health care, earn more than the paltry minimum wage, find affordable housing or get more than two months of paid leave to care for their newborn. Yeah, it's the "Right" that's been working hard on fixing those problems.
And for someone to say that they've never needed to consider an abortion...are you sterile? If not, then please cross your fingers. Because you might be the woman who gets raped, or has an ectopic pregnancy, or who's birth control failed, or finds out their fetus has horrible genetic defects, or loses their job and health care and have to choose between the kids they have and the one on the way.
Personal responsibility is great, I support (and fund) groups that promote it. But let's not forget the golden rule: Sh*t happens.
-
I have a great idea
[Read the article: Airlines ban men from sitting next to kids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Create a family/kids section or family only flights. All travelers will thank you then. It would also be a breast feeding friendly zone.
Really though this is stupid. I'm not even sure that underage children should be allowed to fly alone. But if they do they should just be placed near or with a flight attendant(of course that FA could be a child molester, so take your chances). *I* certainly don't want to be paying for the pleasure of being your child's nanny for the duration of my flight. Any unknown person male or female could harm your child while you aren't there to watch over them. They could be molested by a man, or they might be snatched by some woman. But most likely they will be fine except for annoying the unsuspecting female passenger now tasked with minding them and the completely innocent male passenger that is tagged a potential molester. It is _your_ responsibility to look after _your_ kid. If you want to protect your child, then travel with them and sit in the middle seat with your child next to you either on the aisle or in the window seat. Not all men are child molesters, and not all women are care givers.
And "A Cramer"...you are/were a strange little girl.
-
Hey Mr. Blue Balls
[Read the article: Progress on the male pill]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, women experience "blue balls". It's called pelvic flooding. It happens to us often enough when our male partners think that sex begins and end with 2 minutes of thrusting and their ejaculation with or without the face shot.
Anyway back on the topic. I say hurray as long as side effects aren't anything as bad as hormonal birth control. I have no problem with the idea of dry orgasm, it would save a lot of mess and we'd save trees without all of the tissues. And on laundry.