|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 7, 2017 22:05:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 8, 2017 5:11:03 GMT -5
Be nice, Vince. Remember it's likely some of these women have spent copious time, effort and resources designing and creating costumes that highlight the body part they value most highly, or costumes that illustrate the millennia of oppression they've experienced as members of a male-dominated, capitalist society, and then displaying said costumes while marching, unmolested, down the street.
Said copious free time made available by technical advances financed by capitalist males that long ago freed them from 16-hour days cooking over a fire pit, beating clothes clean on rocks in a stream, constantly attending to an ever-growing brood of ankle-biters, and dying wholesale in childbirth.
Said creative effort made possible by a society that allows women to pursue an education, shop for those resources or drive a car without their husband's permission, and appear in public with face and ankles proudly on display.
Said resources cleaved from the earth and made available in endless variety by entrepreneurs striving to meet the varied demands of these consumers, and others, in search of the very profit many of them will claim to despise.
Said protest protected by police, paid for out of the profits of those entrepreneurs. And the cleanup of the streets afterward will also be financed by confiscation of the proceeds of the acts of those greedy capitalists that have made wealth so abundant in modern society that significant amounts can be squandered to no good end without disastrous consequences... a condition only possible in the most developed of societies. The dearth of clever costumes at the marches in Cuba, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia will be testament to that.
And almost nothing will be said of the benefits that might have accrued to society, if only those thousands of hours of planning, thousands of dollars in resources and travel, thousands of hours of involvement and opportunities to dialog with like-minded protesters had instead been invested in the local communities of those who gather to protest.
Besides, as long as they wear those sexy little pink hats with the ears, it's all good.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 8, 2017 5:26:27 GMT -5
Oh, yeah, I missed this part. What's with this male-centric view that all women should be teachers and waitresses? What kind of oppressive thinking is that, Mr. Oppressive Oppressor? What do you think will happen on the International Space Station if Peggy Whitson strikes today? What if all the female drone and fighter pilots sat on their asses and refused to kill people today? What if female military personnel in general told their chain of command they were taking the day off due to hot flashes? There could be some real problems from this.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 8, 2017 5:32:22 GMT -5
To underscore the importance of women to society, I'd recommend that instead of striking, women tell men to stay home for the day and watch how smoothly things run in their absence.
Nothing would make the point better than "Hold my beer and watch this."
|
|
|
Post by perks on Mar 8, 2017 9:34:02 GMT -5
Wow. I'm not actually sold on the idea of a day-long strike as useful or pointed, but you two really did come off as a couple of jerks here.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 8, 2017 11:40:33 GMT -5
Wow. I'm not actually sold on the idea of a day-long strike as useful or pointed, but you two really did come off as a couple of jerks here. Really? How? I'm all for appreciating women and all that they do. Lord knows, I don't know how I'd survive without my wife who is the strongest person I've ever known. But the strike seems self indulgent to me. I've been on strike. When my company refused to bargin in good faith just last Spring. Out on a picket line, worrying about how I was going to put food on the table, keep a roof over the head of me and my family. It happened at the worst time. My 2 daughters were gearing up for college, and my eldest daughter's BFF had a friend who, along with her younger brother and sister were about to be out on the street, so we took them in. They've now become sort of unofficial foster kids. I didn't get paid, I didn't have health care. And it was against my employer who refused to treat us fairly. Record profits, wanting to us to sacrifice as if the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. These women, for the most part, aren't working for employers who have done anything to earn their not coming to work. A lot of them work in small stores, restaurants, schools, hospitals, etc. There are people who depend on them showing up for work. Women refusing to show up for work en masse can have real consequences for other people who aren't the reason for them going out on strike. This is more about Trump for them, but is this going to inconvenience him? No. So it's wasted. And if they get fired from their jobs for taking an unexcused day (Unless they all take a vacation day. But if they call in sick or just refuse to show up) then where are they? That's what happened when immigrants did that. This also doesn't just affect the employers. What if a restaurant that have mostly women who work there can't function for the day, so they close. I guess the men who work there are out a days pay as well. And what if a woman calls in sick today because she's really sick? And they get canned because their employer doesn't believe that they're out for legitimate reasons? My wife is worried about that because she called in today, but she was literally up all night, ill. I have a friend who posted about this last night. She's a single mom, struggling to make ends meet for her and her children. She can't afford to take the day, or risk her jobs. (Yes, plural.) Yet some women are giving her a hard time. I doubt they're going to step up and help cover the bills for my friend if she's fired. They're saying don't do any unpaid work. Does that mean kids are on their own? Charity work is a no no? This all seems to be aimed at Trump, yet none of it affects Trump. There's no clear purpose to this. I'm union. I always support those who are on a picket line. It's not easy. It's not a carefree day off. The entire point of it is to make the business suffer without you so they have to work out your grievance. And there are consequences. That strike I was on last mid April to the end of May ate up a shit ton of my savings. And I haven't heard one person explain how this helps anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 8, 2017 11:59:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Mar 8, 2017 13:17:29 GMT -5
Wow. I'm not actually sold on the idea of a day-long strike as useful or pointed, but you two really did come off as a couple of jerks here. Oh, sweetie, don't be silly. Look, a couple of guys don't see the point of this, which means there is none. Plus, they or some hypothetical people they don't know might be inconvenienced so how about taking off those silly hats and sitting down behind your secretary's desk, hmm? Sorry if that's overly sarcastic but damn, Vince and Don, your comments come across as incredibly patronizing, which is ironic given the subject of the thread (and the theme of the day).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 13:35:09 GMT -5
I am not a fan of the "let's not go to work" brand protests -- both because only a privileged few can afford to participate without sacrifice and risk, and because I don't think they are as effective as other forms. And we all know I don't care for the pink pussy hats.
That said -- "hot flashes?" Really? And I don't think it is particularly high praise for our country that women are "allowed" to drive, get an education, and work. That should be a given -- a bare-minimum baseline starting point.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 8, 2017 13:44:52 GMT -5
I see the point of a women's day. I don't see the point of striking against employers that you aren't protesting. And if you read the article I quoted, one of the women who organized the large March for woman agrees with me.
And if they're calling on all women to not go to work, how are the patients they treat, the children they teach, the coworkers who are affected hypothetical?
If the entire point is to show how essential women are to the work place, then they're asking for an essential part of the work place to stay away. Is that not going to have a negative impact on people? On the businesses that serve them.
They're saying to only spend money on women owned businesses. So a man who is the sole bread winner of his family, who might be struggling to make ends meet is going to suffer. Isn't that the point? And if that happens to be a single dad, who is supporting daughters, then what? Oh well? Or if his employees who are women don't come in, and his business takes a huge financial hit, that's cool too. That'll show Trump.
Here's the thing. I'm explaining why I see this as a bad idea. I'm not dismissing a opposing point of view as patronizing.
I'm also seeing a lot of friends who are saying the same things, women who don't have time or money to 'strike' for the day. They have bills to pay, and mouths to feed. And some of them are getting grief over it.
And if a job fires a woman for not coming to work when they're not sick and they didn't take a vacation day, (Which depending on the company, may have to be approved, and approval may depend on the workforce for the day, like my job.) then are they patronizing? Are they anti-woman? I'd get into big trouble if I decided to not show up at work with no medical reason, and if it wasn't an approved day. It affects business.
This isn't against woman's day. Or appreciation for women. It's about someone coming up with the idea that they should strike. But their not striking against the target of their grievance.
|
|
|
Post by perks on Mar 8, 2017 14:13:59 GMT -5
Ugh. Like I said, I'm not sold on the idea at all. But it's not aimed at Trump, as much as it is Trump as front man for a host of tiresome grievances that range from the merely irritating (School teachers and waitresses? Fucking hell.) to the infuriating (Sexy pussy hats? And pretty much a solid two-thirds of Don's insulting characterizations.) to the dangerous (you do the fucking math.)
But I'm really glad you explained to me why you think it's a bad idea, because it doesn't change my opinion on anything but you.
Double ugh.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 8, 2017 14:34:24 GMT -5
So what in my explanation did you take exception to? That all women taking a unified day off puts an incredible burden on the businesses they work for? (Or that the individual business isn't the target of their strike? Because if it is, that certainly changes things.) That all women striking from jobs will affect the costumers, such as school children for teachers, patients for doctors and nurses, groups of people that may have planned a catered event may not get that event? Since part of the strike was for women not to spend any money in any business not owned by a woman (Which is hard if those women are also on strike) that it may have a negative impact on small business owners who have families and obligations, and again, are not the target of the strike? Since it was stated that women shouldn't perform unpaid jobs, do you think I'm wrong that means for mothers, including single mothers, are supposed to not care for their children? I'm not defending Don's contributions, that's for him to do. I'm not attacking women since most of the women I know seem to feel the same way. They have to go to work to pay the bills, pay the rent, buy the food. They can't afford the day off. Or is my assertion that many women might get fired like what happened with immigrant workers. www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/us/workers-fired-day-without-immigrants/index.html What about my take is off? www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/us/day-without-woman-2017-schools/
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 8, 2017 17:41:08 GMT -5
I guess I really just don't see the point of the "A Day without Women" / "Let's not show up for work because reasons" protest at all. What is the point? I could kind of see the point behind the immigration work-day protest (because immigration bans and deportations affect our workforce) but what is the logic behind the women's work protest? Especially when it seems like the only ones who will be able participate are those who can afford it. The actual hardworking women who are barely making ends meet will still have to show up for work. I'm also disgusted at the fact that there are teachers and nurses who say they will strike, apparently disregarding the negative impact their actions will have on innocent students and patients. Who out there is currently underappreciating working women? Does that idea stem from the false narrative behind the so-called "Gender Wage Gap" (which has already been thoroughly debunked)? I'm really at a loss to figure out where this idea is coming from. There are legitimate issues that women are having to deal with in the US right now; restricted access to abortion services, birth control not being covered by insurance, and the sexist rantings of an overtly misogynist President. But, what do any of those things have to do with the impact of women in the workforce? I'm honestly not seeing the connection. And, without a logical underlying narrative for this "strike," it comes across to me as nothing more than jumping on the bandwagon of the immigration strike a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by perks on Mar 8, 2017 18:22:03 GMT -5
So what in my explanation did you take exception to? I, personally, don't think a strike on such a diffuse scale is likely to provoke much of a result, and have said repeatedly that I'm not in support of it. But your invoking the idea of selfish teachers and waitresses in pink pussy hats who haven't thought it through enough to include the needs of single dads makes me think that it would be rather a waste of typing to try to explain the frustration that led some women to think it might be a worthwhile exercise. You will have to remain the bewildered "nice guy" who knows how things really are.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Mar 8, 2017 19:10:06 GMT -5
It was a noble cause, poorly implemented.
I blame haggis
|
|