@junkyardarts: i am an idiot and can not read! sorry!!!
@junkyardarts: yeah and hopefully edith is still punching people who make other people cry with words. who is the maniac again?
@yvanehtnioj: that's very fair. To get into more detail, I would argue that "stud" has negative implications as well but due to societal pressure and our patriarchical society, the negative is minimized almost to the point of non-existence because it relates to a man. a perfect example of male privilege.
My point (which was made poorly and rudely - for both I apologize) is that all of this slut/stud/forward/upfront/creep talk is often handled poorly because of the male bias in our society. If we want to confront and correct it, shouldn't we examine and address all of the issues and not just the ones that hamper women? Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it will allow us to get buy in from the man masses?
This last part is an honest question and I'd love to hear your response. I know it seems like that approach would be placating men but if one wants a mile, shouldn't one be expected to give an inch? I'm a feminist man but certainly haven't figured it all out yet and am looking to keep learning and growing.
Thanks!
My point (which was made poorly and rudely - for both I apologize) is that all of this slut/stud/forward/upfront/creep talk is often handled poorly because of the male bias in our society. If we want to confront and correct it, shouldn't we examine and address all of the issues and not just the ones that hamper women? Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it will allow us to get buy in from the man masses?
This last part is an honest question and I'd love to hear your response. I know it seems like that approach would be placating men but if one wants a mile, shouldn't one be expected to give an inch? I'm a feminist man but certainly haven't figured it all out yet and am looking to keep learning and growing.
Thanks!
@yvanehtnioj: men are rewarded with the stud moniker while women suffer the slut moniker. women are rewarded with the forward moniker (which is MUCH better than creep) while men suffer the creep moniker. the actionable implications of slut and stud are actually very similar. It's the societal connotations that differentiate them. Same thing goes for forward vs creep.
The Author doesn't seem to be saying that they equal each other out AT ALL. What they seem to be saying is that BOTH are wrong. Yet you excuse the one that benefits women. You'd make a good patriarchical man!
Also, men are called sluts too but it's rare. WOW. the similarities are staggering!
The Author doesn't seem to be saying that they equal each other out AT ALL. What they seem to be saying is that BOTH are wrong. Yet you excuse the one that benefits women. You'd make a good patriarchical man!
Also, men are called sluts too but it's rare. WOW. the similarities are staggering!
"score one for women?" I get that this is tongue in cheek but seriously... if JEZEBEL is still framing feminism as a man v woman issue, how do you expect anyone else to do differently and just speak about equality? Sure, you're joking but at the same time you're still reaffirming bullshit ideologies. The question is, was that joke really worth it?
maybe he's a hindu.
anyone can tear apart a small portion of a "study" with anectdotal counter-examples. Kind of a lazy approach and seems like the OP is just baiting the readers. See Rob Buckley's comment below. on average, overweight women can be very happy. things change when you move into the obese category statistically speaking.
he is the embodiment of proof that all lacrosse players are not, in fact, total aholes. Love this guy.
@TransFat: it's about as good as "jacking it". equality: yay.
@Valkyrie607votesMizJenkins: unless you are ALL of those people about to get flashed, I don't think you're qualified to make that statement. Some drunk lady flashing me when I don't want it is harassment. Just like a dude whipping it out in front of you could be.
@CatGaffney: I agree. "empowering" does not relate to what Max does but that wasn't my point. My point was that your comment implied Max's schtick couldn't be empowering because he is white and "fratty", not just because he is a Dbag.
@CatGaffney: so no fratty white dude can feel the need to be empowered? way to make a sweeping generalization based solely on race and class. Nice... oppression and power can be tied to class and race but that doesn't mean it always applies.
@SkaHimself: she named names and then emailed it around. she is not blameless. Stop making silly excuses and differentiating one ahole from another. Sure, she was WAY funnier than he was but they're both human pieces of shit. Like Bono.
@Bullet_Tooth_Tony: An MRI is for 25 minutes. uncured backpain is forever. so... yeah.
I have a hard time buying the whole "the pain was SO bad" argument when you can't even deal with getting an MRI. Really not that bad in the grand scheme of things.
people who claim that God "spoke" to them are the scariest of all. GOD told me to do it. Instant excuse.
@westvillagegirl (exiled in chicago): SO TRUE! I guess the only solution is to wait for China's economy to collapse (which should happen in the next 10 years as their subsidization pattern continues to be unsustainable and eventually breaks the system) and then loan them all their money back at higher rates! Governments: ruining the world one crappy loan at a time.
But really, you hit the nail on the head... mathematically, it doesn't matter where the money is coming from as long as it comes in some form. The problem with the Republican/Conservative approach is that they say they want to reduce the govt income but have literally NEVER reduced the govt's expenditures. Sure they kill programs but then they replace them with more military actions and spending or something like that. Bush is a great example... he killed some programs, cut others back and then spent over a trillion dollars on the military like THAT! Palin would do the same and then say "National Security!" and she would think the argument is over. THAT is dangerous stuff...
I think we agree really. Realizing that fact has been fun!
But really, you hit the nail on the head... mathematically, it doesn't matter where the money is coming from as long as it comes in some form. The problem with the Republican/Conservative approach is that they say they want to reduce the govt income but have literally NEVER reduced the govt's expenditures. Sure they kill programs but then they replace them with more military actions and spending or something like that. Bush is a great example... he killed some programs, cut others back and then spent over a trillion dollars on the military like THAT! Palin would do the same and then say "National Security!" and she would think the argument is over. THAT is dangerous stuff...
I think we agree really. Realizing that fact has been fun!
@westvillagegirl (exiled in chicago): my apologies for my first reply. Upon further review, I was definitely a bit rude. Sorry for that and then calling you out on it. Living up to my namesake, I guess. woohoo?
The banks may loan again at a higher rate but I think you need to distinguish between the money a rich person gives to a bank and the money the banks have gotten from the Fed. Private and investment deposits require a return whereas the Fed's loans to banks are sitting 0-.25%returns which can be made back via intrabank overnight lending. When a rich guy puts money in the bank he expects a real % return depending on the type of deposit. that can not be covered as easily with overnight IB or international lending. You're conflating the two monetary issuances. Money put in the bank by the wealthy is still being lent back out. it has to be. The cap reserves are basically GSE propping up banks that lost the game.
You are absolutely correct that Banks are NOT pumping it back into the economy but it is because Americans still aren't saving at a very high rate, wealthy or not, and not because the banks are just sitting on all the money they get from rich people.
The banks may loan again at a higher rate but I think you need to distinguish between the money a rich person gives to a bank and the money the banks have gotten from the Fed. Private and investment deposits require a return whereas the Fed's loans to banks are sitting 0-.25%returns which can be made back via intrabank overnight lending. When a rich guy puts money in the bank he expects a real % return depending on the type of deposit. that can not be covered as easily with overnight IB or international lending. You're conflating the two monetary issuances. Money put in the bank by the wealthy is still being lent back out. it has to be. The cap reserves are basically GSE propping up banks that lost the game.
You are absolutely correct that Banks are NOT pumping it back into the economy but it is because Americans still aren't saving at a very high rate, wealthy or not, and not because the banks are just sitting on all the money they get from rich people.
@westvillagegirl (exiled in chicago): again, I agree with you but there is a lack of evidence that what we believe is true. I think trickle down economics is total BS but a lot of accomplished economists don't. What's better... 300 lower income Americans buying a "good" made in china or one high wealth indiv putting the money in a bank, which can then be lent to a business that will employ three people with salaries that will then be taxed?
I'd side with the 300 people buying a good but AGAIN, the reality based math that is used to support either side is awfully weak.
I'd side with the 300 people buying a good but AGAIN, the reality based math that is used to support either side is awfully weak.
@westvillagegirl (exiled in chicago): Maynard is my hypothetical economics boy but thanks for assuming I'm an idiot. And his theories certainly work in a vaccuum. Of course, the theory behind MBSs also worked in a vaccuum. The multiplier effect of government taxation and subsidization is similar to the concept of lending more money with the same cap reserves. Again, the math works but in reality and at a certain inflection point, it does not.
I'm all for ending the tax cuts. Let me just say that right now. The richest members of a society should pay more back to the society from which they made their money. They basically pay back into the system for rewarding them but there is such a thing as going to far and stagnating growth. I don't think the US is even close to that point but I can see why some people argue that we have already passed that point.
You and I think we should go further and increase govt spending. they think we should pull back on taxes. So far, neither side has put forth ANY truly compelling evidence that either side is actually right.
I'm all for ending the tax cuts. Let me just say that right now. The richest members of a society should pay more back to the society from which they made their money. They basically pay back into the system for rewarding them but there is such a thing as going to far and stagnating growth. I don't think the US is even close to that point but I can see why some people argue that we have already passed that point.
You and I think we should go further and increase govt spending. they think we should pull back on taxes. So far, neither side has put forth ANY truly compelling evidence that either side is actually right.
