|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 8, 2017 20:02:12 GMT -5
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. I don't believe that's what I said, nor is it what I meant. Maybe the fault is mine, for expressing myself badly, or maybe your reading something into my responses that I don't intend. Women striking en masse will cause inconveniences and hassles for many. I used single fathers to try and illustrate that included people, yes some of who are men, who rely on them will be disadvantaged. That is, to an extent the point of a strike, right? But many of those people affected are not the ones who are the reason for their grievances that is behind the strike. The ones who are organizing it are ones who I believe didn't think it through. Many women can't afford to sacrifice a day of pay. And some who do might lose their jobs as a result. If I'm not saying it right, maybe you should read it from a woman. qz.com/924575/womens-strike-2017-a-day-without-a-woman-is-going-to-be-mostly-a-day-without-privileged-women/When I was on strike, there was a specific goal, and a specific target. My employer. What is the goal of this strike? Who is the target? Who is going to suffer because of it? Why say don't spend money in a store unless it's owned by women? Is a man who owns a business, and earns a livelihood to support his family doing something inherently sexist? Why ask women to no do unpaid labor. I assume they mean child care, or elder care. People who need that care. Is there an assumption that if mom isn't feeding the kids, there's someone else to do so? What if there isn't. I doubt many mothers are going to let their kids starve, but the fact that this was asked says it was not thought out. It seems to me that this aspect of Women's Day was very poorly thought out. One of the other parts of Women's Day was to wear red. This I get. In my job, union members are supposed to wear red every Thursday. It's a sign of solidarity. I always do, although others are less likely to when we're not in contract negotiations. When we are, every Thursday is a sea of red. When we were on strike, walking the line, we wore red. It showed unity. If women all showed up to work, wearing red, it drives the point home how women are doing the job along side of us. I'm all for women's equality. I don't see how this in anyway helps women, and it may hurt some women. As one of the articles I posted, if schools closed, parents had to find alternative child care. Having unity rallies, showing solidarity, I get and support all that. I just see the idea of a strike as a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Mar 8, 2017 20:17:38 GMT -5
I dunno. If I had to accept 68% (or whatever) of my current salary, watch as my own health-care decisions were taken out of my hands by others in government, for ostensibly religious (and not government) reasons, and see that my new leader considered it normal 'locker room talk' to cop a feel, or that he's entitled to walk into my changing room because he runs the show I'm in, 'self-indulgent' is not how I'd classify a demonstration like this.
I would imagine the people involved understand a day without pay, and the odds of being fired for it. Argue that it's directed against the wrong target, okay. No comment there, either way. But the point of a demonstration is to get people to notice. To suggest that they should take care not to inconvenience people seems to miss the point.
Then again, I'm one of the most privileged creatures on the planet, so what would I know.
|
|
|
Post by perks on Mar 8, 2017 20:37:16 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, Vince. I'm well aware of the the opposition to the strike, said by you or some random woman, and I've said myself that I don't think it's effective or well-focused. In fact, I've said that in every single one of my posts in this thread. I'm not sure how you could have missed this.
It's your patronizing characterization of what you think women should or shouldn't be angry or frustrated about, and what you think they should or shouldn't do about it.
I don't think any businesses went under for one day of disruption, scattershot as it was.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 8, 2017 21:16:24 GMT -5
There always seems to be so much more freedom for some men (and some women) to analyze and judge women's behavior, especially when they are acting as a group. And there also often seems to be this extra-special oh-so-condescending implication that women just don't realize how they're "hurting" others (the businesses...the single dads...the children...the fucking puppies and the plant life too, I'm sure. As though it is specifically women's universal imperative to make sure none of these precious living things are "hurt"). These women are just being "emotional," they haven't "thought it through," but thankfully, there are lots of men (and some women, too) to helpfully explain how it all really works to them. My personal opinion is that Vince and Don are being way too emotional about one damn day where some women don't/didn't show up to work. Not a big deal, as far as I can tell. Here we are, at the end of this day. Did anyone suffer? Or was it just an opportunity for some people to jump on the "Here We Go Again" bandwagon and wring their hands while also showing how wrong these women are, and how much more they "know." Don? Vince? You don't know jack. But here, have a sammich.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 8, 2017 22:39:36 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, Vince. I'm well aware of the the opposition to the strike, said by you or some random woman, and I've said myself that I don't think it's effective or well-focused. In fact, I've said that in every single one of my posts in this thread. I'm not sure how you could have missed this. It's your patronizing characterization of what you think women should or shouldn't be angry or frustrated about, and what you think they should or shouldn't do about it. I don't think any businesses went under for one day of disruption, scattershot as it was. I never addressed what women should or shouldn't be angry about. I wouldn't presume to be in a position to explain it. My entire post was how the strike aspect was a bad idea and could and would have unintended consequences. Part of my ire was from a friend of mine who said she was tired of people trying to tell her that she should participate, even though she as a single mom couldn't afford to take the day. However, I thought this was a bad idea when we saw it with immigrants, and many got fired over it. I think it's a bad idea now. And I explained why. Not why the movement or the anger behind it wasn't justified. As I mentioned earlier, I've got 2 daughters, plus 2 foster daughters who have to navigate their way in this world. All of them are smarter then I could ever hope to be. I know that they'll have to deal with male dominated fields. My eldest daughter is going into marketing, and was asked to be the 1 freshman from her college to represent the school to new students. My oldest (unofficial) foster daughter is studying engineering and talks about crap that sounds like gobbly gook to me. I imagine engineering is a very male dominated field. He school certainly is, as it's a 4 to 1 male to female ratio. All of them kick ass grade wise and I know they can do the jobs that they want to do. I hope when they're actually doing it, they do get the appreciation they deserve, and aren't hit with the obstacles because of their gender. I get it as much as I can. Still doesn't change the fact that the strike part was a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Mar 8, 2017 23:21:38 GMT -5
I don't think that "like and share" would have the same effect.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Mar 9, 2017 0:21:36 GMT -5
I don't think that "like and share" would have the same effect. Women try to raise awareness for issues they care about on social media: They're slacktivists who never do anything productive. Women march in the streets: They should all shut up and go home. Look, I'm in agreement that the protests were not well planned or executed. And any women who shamed other women who couldn't or didn't want to participate were definitely in the wrong. But I absolutely share in the frustration, and I can understand why people are grasping at any way they can DO something. FWIW, Vince, I mostly agree with you. Don's post was the one that made me see red (thankfully I missed it until tonight), and I think it's why this thread felt really condescending to some of us.
|
|
|
Post by perks on Mar 9, 2017 6:44:46 GMT -5
I don't think that "like and share" would have the same effect. FWIW, Vince, I mostly agree with you. Don's post was the one that made me see red (thankfully I missed it until tonight), and I think it's why this thread felt really condescending to some of us. The thread title and first paragraph distress of what will the children do without school teachers and the restaurants do without their waitresses started it out on a sour note for me.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 9, 2017 6:48:58 GMT -5
So let me get this right. The protests were not well planned or executed. Some women used this as an opportunity to shame other women for not fully supporting their agenda, even at the risk of their jobs. No clear message was transmitted, and it appears the major impact was to further widen the divide among the citizenry and heighten the animosity the two divisions feel toward each other. Considerable resources were spent on a "feel-good" moment that failed to produce any concrete results.
And those "marginalized women" this march was supposed to help were instead made to feel shame for their circumstances and their unwillingness to risk their tentative grasp on the economic ladder to join their "more enlightened" sisters in the protest.
But apparently, once again, doing "something" is better than doing nothing at all? Is it really necessary to point out there's no "A" for effort, no participation trophies, in society at large? I blame that misconception on the educational system.
I see nothing at all positive about this event. It showed all the self-indulgence of a six-year-old grabbing a candy bar for dinner. In a case like that, I see nothing wrong with an adult pointing out that all that waste of money is going to do is rot the kids' teeth, instead of praising the kid for making a choice, even if it was a bad one.
IMO, the last thing this society needed now was yet another National Day of Liberal Angst. We've seen quite enough of that since November 8, thank you.
I still say it was a crapload of time, energy and resources flushed down the drain that could have been used instead in myriad ways to positively impact both society and those actually disadvantaged by some of the issues these privileged protesters claimed to be trying to correct.
Hate on me all you want. Personally, I'm at the point where I "see red" when White Liberal Privilege rears its head; particularly 1)misdirected, 2)ineffectively planned, 3)self-centered, 4)elitist, 5)exclusionary, 6)economically foolish White Liberal Privilege.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 9, 2017 8:31:05 GMT -5
FWIW, Vince, I mostly agree with you. Don's post was the one that made me see red (thankfully I missed it until tonight), and I think it's why this thread felt really condescending to some of us. The thread title and first paragraph distress of what will the children do without school teachers and the restaurants do without their waitresses started it out on a sour note for me. The Here we go again was in reference to the day without an immigrant. Perhaps not the best thread title on my part.
As far as my original examples, those were simply the first ones that came to mind when thinking of how this would be a burden on those who aren't being protested. I realize both are traditional female jobs. I realize I could and should have used other examples, such as doctors not seeing the patients, but the school one and the restaurant one seemed the place where it would hit the hardest.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 9, 2017 8:41:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 9, 2017 8:49:53 GMT -5
You guys really did sound patronizing as hell. Even if your arguments about the ineffectiveness of the "strike" were largely correct, you came off almost like Dickensian characters tut-tutting and waggling your double chins at the poor benighted lower orderswimminz who don't know what's best for them and don't appreciate what their betters have done for them. And you know I am not shy about sneering and tut-tutting at stupid leftist antics.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 9, 2017 8:54:53 GMT -5
You guys really did sound patronizing as hell. Even if your arguments about the ineffectiveness of the "strike" were largely correct, you came off almost like Dickensian characters tut-tutting and waggling your double chins at the poor benighted lower orderswimminz who don't know what's best for them and don't appreciate what their betters have done for them. And you know I am not shy about sneering and tut-tutting at stupid leftist antics. I'm assuming you adding on the ensian was your way of being nice.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 9, 2017 9:53:20 GMT -5
You guys really did sound patronizing as hell. Even if your arguments about the ineffectiveness of the "strike" were largely correct, you came off almost like Dickensian characters tut-tutting and waggling your double chins at the poor benighted lower orderswimminz who don't know what's best for them and don't appreciate what their betters have done for them. And you know I am not shy about sneering and tut-tutting at stupid leftist antics. I'm assuming you adding on the ensian was your way of being nice. I'm reading Hard Times right now. You reminded me of Bounderby.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 9, 2017 11:02:22 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. Q.F.T. I'm guessing maybe Vince and Don would have preferred the little ladies submit a written request in advance for the day off so the boss could tell them "Hell, no and get me some damn coffee." Nice going, guys. You're real gentlemen.
|
|