Letters to the Editor
LeCastor
Published Letters: 1916 Editor's Choice: 86
-
"Entitlement Whiners"
[Read the article: Why the barista can't breast-feed]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyway, as evidenced here, most of the LWs could really give about flying fig about lowly "barristas" or some mother fliiping bugers at Mickey D's. They pay it lip service and then they go into their breastfeeding experiences and what they want, because as we all know, what's good for them is naturally good for all mothers. See, if you allow them the perks that they want that means you are taking care of the health all children in the US and putting all "the children" before corporate profits. It's sort of a social version of the trickle down theory.
I really don't know why class warfare has to be introduced into this debate -- to divide women further so they can bicker amongst themselves and not actually fight for change? The gains made by women working in "the professions" do actually trickle down, but the differences in pekrs, benefits and working conditions between salaried professionals and by the hour wage earning people extend beyond benefits for women -- and yes, there is a disparity. And why shouldn't there be? You get better working conditions, like a chair and not being in a hot kitchen, if you invested time and money into your career and have marketable skills. It's how capitalism works.
And i really don't appreciate the idea that just because someone has a professional or high-raking or high -paying job, they shouldn't complain, or that they don't have "real" problems.
My point is that my vehicles (I sadly have no summer home) confer no benefits to other people but my children will.
Yes, but my personal hobbies like, being an artist or a writer, or whatever, could actually benefit others. But for some reason, that is not a good enough reason to take time off, but taking little Johnny to the doctor is.
However it gets testy when it seems that childless or child-free people are assuming that they know exactly what a parent's needs are. Parents find advice about how to handle children from those without children very annoying. So "I don't want to work extra so you can pump" reflects your rights, but "you don't need to pump" is going to evoke an "Oh yes I do" response.
I'm not a parent, but i find the whole logic of "don't talk about it if you don't have X" a little stupid.
-
"anti-mother diatribes"
[Read the article: Why the barista can't breast-feed]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many of the anti-mother diatribes I read here and elsewhere in the Salon letters section remind me of that old saying about certain liberals: They love humanity but hate people. As much as it pains me to admit it, a previous letter writer was correct: in my experience, conservative Republicans are much more likely to be kind and show common decency toward working mothers than many so-called liberals -- in their personal behavior, if not in the public policies they espouse. (My local coffee-company owner is, thankfully, an active liberal Democrat. Score one, at least, for my side.)
-- surprised
It's not anti-mother, it's anti-"let's all prostrate ourselves and forget our own wants and needs for the benefit of children, even if they are not our children." As for "liberals" loving humanity but hating people, i find that that it's not so much a liberal trait as a trait of people who have high standards for others (and often themselves). As for conservatives, "common decency" is a semantic blank spot -- it doesn't relaly mean anything. In fact, it might have been "indecent" for women to work at all outside the home 50 years ago, indecent to kiss your girlfriend in public, especially if you both are women, etc. Republicans espouse some of the most anti-people policies out there.
-
Decency
[Read the article: Why the barista can't breast-feed]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]personal behavior versus policies
"Republicans espouse some of the most anti-people policies out there."
I know! That's the thing that gets me. So many conservative Republicans I know are really decent, kind human beings who are always going out of their way to help others, yet their policies are very anti-people, as you put it. The contrast is incredible.
I remember having a debate with a conservative friend way back, at the time Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act. My friend's argument was that it was not government's business to meddle with how employers granted leave to their workers. And, he argued, wouldn't any logical, decent employer grant maternity leave or leave to someone with pressing family needs? But as you and I know, many employers won't.
From my life experience, I've kind of come to the conclusion that many of these really nice people who happen to be politically conservative assume -- incorrectly -- that others will automatically act decently and that there's no need to for government to intervene to make sure that they do. I think they also overestimate the magic of the free market and the ability of individuals to move freely between jobs. Yes, people can change jobs, but not at the snap of a finger.
-- surprised
You and I pretty much agree, except that i'm no fan of "decency." It doesn't mean anything, it's just acting the way you're "supposed" to. Merriam-Webster:
2 a : the quality or state of being decent : PROPRIETY b : conformity to standards of taste, propriety, or quality
3 : standard of propriety -- usually used in plural
4 plural : conditions or services considered essential for a proper standard of living
5 : literary decorum
These people expect others to act "decently" by thtey never think that definitions of decency may vary across cultures, genders, generations. It just shows how conformist and unoriginal many of them are.