Letters to the Editor
-
Why do editors print these things?
She's blaming feminisim and not the extreme version of Milton Friedman-style captitalism that's been eroding the quality of American/British life since at least the Thatcher/Reagan years? Yeah right, because feminism has so much power in the business world.... Sheesh.
-
P.S.
Post script to the above note:
And what's with this editorial trend lately of printing articles by women attacking other women, no matter how illogical or far-fetched the attack is? At a time when it's extremely hard for women to get anything near equal editorial space in our nations newspapers in order to talk about real subjects (like, say, the war in Iraq or the bankrupting of our society here at home), why do women who are willing to slag off other women on the flimsiest of contexts find it so easy to gain column inches? Are we next going to see a slew of articles by black or hispanic writers questioning the intelligence and morals of people of color and the value of the civil rights movement? Which would be the equivalent.
I would like to gather all the nation's newspapers and producers into a room and say, "For heaven's sake, up. Our country, and planet, have huge problems to tackle, and you're wasting our time throwing spitballs at the girls."
-
Correction
Er...that was meant to be "For heaven's sake, grow up..." above.
Clearly I must go drink more coffee and wake up. My apologies for the typo.
-
@MBlack
You're right - women shouldn't attack other women in print.
It's not allowed - should be punished.
That kind of writing pollutes the feminist echo chamber.....
-
MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL!
Reading this crap from you whiners makes my blood boil! My mother worked in a so-called male-dominated factories from the 1950's until she retired in 1994. She didn't earn equal pay for equal work until she went to work in a union plant in the mid 1960's, and then we had to move to another part of the state, leaving family and friends, for her to have the job. She didn't have health care insurance and up to 6 weeks of paid vacation until she went to work in that union plant.
So, what's the message again? The problem with you white, liberal elites is that somehow you don't take into account how the rest of the world has been living, including the women you want to blame for freakin' everything.
-
@AKA Smith You and your dog's limitations
Although, humans and your dog share the ability to show empathy, and think conceptually, we are all still motivated by our own self interest.
Afterall, if dogs were not an empathetic creature, they would have remained wolves, and likewise would be on the endangered species list right now.
Empathy, like many other altruistic behaviors are developed because they enhance a creatures survival, not inspite of it.
And getting back to the central theme, of work life balance. When creatures see work life balance as a benefit to themselves, they endorse it. When they don't they don't.
As such a fellow like myself, with a wife and child, and numerous family and house chores todo, will advocate for work life balance, and pass up other more lucrative opportunities to achieve that balance.
The problem is that when I was a younger fellow without these obligations I would seek out these more lucrative opportuites because I had the time to do so. My seeking of work life balance now, isn't caused by desire to write erotic epic poetry in moonlit forrests, it is caused by the numerous other obligations I have to take up.
So long as the old must compete with the young, work life balance will be kept to a minimum. The young will work harder to gain more, and to stay even the old can not show weakness and ask for more time.
When there was a delegation of responsibilities (if such a time ever existed) I would of course expect my wife to care for all those work a day things, that require my work life balance, but since we both work, we both have to find jobs that offer work life balance, passing up better opportunities, and competeing where ever we go with younger unattached persons that can work late, eat out of vending machines, and drink clients under the table at the drop of a hat. Things we ourselves can nolonger do.
So I guess, it's not women who ruined the work place, it's kids!
-
kind of missed my own point
I realized after publishing that whole screed that I forgot my central point.
Since we control our own human capital we spend it as we see fit.
This is why the young and old must compete, because the old have no gaurantee against the young and the young owe no fealty to the old.
In a centralized economy or evena union shop, the old can use their established power against the young to keep them in their place, this system only works however as long as the young see benefit in it for themselves. If the young see an opportunity to outshine their elders they do so, to collect rewards and benefits (in what ever fashion they appear, even more time off for example) that are bestowed on them for their extra effort.
The perfect work life balance seems like a good idea on paper, until you ask who must sacrafice so that others can enjoy it. Those that sacrafice will require additional reimbursement for their suffering, that reimbursement leads to a greater requirement from others to keep even.
As individuals we can make a choice about what's important to us, and what we'll sacrafice for, but the system as a whole will always push people in their own self interest to trade more time for more luxury.
-
@ Clockwork Smurf
I see we have very different views of how people are and how the world actually works. Yours is much more mechanistic -- hence your choice of a screen name perhaps.
Let me ask you this: If the world works the way that you say it does, then why do we spend an extraordinary amount of money to keep alive old folks with cancer so that they may enjoy a few more years? Do you anticipate that, in the future, we may all be Soylent Green?
While I found what you had to say interesting, I find that you made no mention of the value of wisdom which comes with age. I also don't think you know much about wolves. They are extremely empathetic creatures. They even attach somewhat to people. However, what most distinguishes them from dogs is their shyness, dogs are generally much bolder, and the wolf's resistence to being trained. Their loyalty will never go to humans when it can go to the pack. The domestication of dogs was probably ultimately achieved by managing to convince wolves that humans were part of the pack -- especially inasmuch as humans provided food just as adult wolves feed their young. Dogs are the infantilization of wolves. Wolves, on the other hand, remain wild. Efforts to make them behave like dogs has ended in tragedy many times. Wolves are also much smarter than dogs. Perhaps that is why they don't now -- even when it seems to their benefit -- ally with humans. Perhaps they sense that we are their enemies. Consider why they are endangered.