CPS whistleblower (video) - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

 27Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 158 Old 04-21-2015, 11:20 AM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,244
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
It really doesn't matter what the incentive is. As long as there's an incentive for the states to rip families apart, they'll rip apart even healthy families.

Money's hardly the only incentive that matters in this society. There are a lot of different ways that politicians sway each other, and at the end of the day- that's all government is. A body of people. There could be other ways politicians could be incentivized to increase the number of kids in foster care and getting adopted out- it'd still be horrible.

Social workers aren't individually swayed by money. They don't get a pay raise for putting more kids in foster care. They don't (to my knowledge) get a bonus for each child adopted out. They get other incentives from their superior. Including the incentive of "if you don't, you're fired".

You can say that it comes down to money- they wouldn't be trying to keep their job if not for money, but that's not so simple. I doubt anyone gets into social work solely for the money. Many truly want to do good, and know that they have to work within the system to be able to help the many kids who truly do need it. Taking a child that, in your heart, you know should stay with their family if it means being able to help a dozen kids who truly need help can be worth it. Or you find a way to convince yourself that the child does deserve to be taken, which is why you get the social workers who flip out over a dirty dish.

And, then, they're incentivized to go after families that don't deserve it. Not by anyone in the system: by the families themselves. If you're signing up to spend the next months or years dealing with a group of people, which people would you prefer? The nice, well-behaved people who will work within the system, or the violent and unpredictable abusers who might seriously harm you and the kids with severe mental problems they've raised? I doubt it's a conscious decision, but ultimately the incentive is there. Parents talk about negative and positive reinforcement all the time, its effect doesn't go away once you hit 18.

There's also another problem: bullies. There are some people who enjoy exercising power over others. They tend to be drawn towards positions like social worker and police officer, because they're in a unique position to exert power over a larger section of the population. These people, as long as they can get the authority, would happily rip families apart for free.

Yes, money is an incentive, but I disagree that the problem is capitalism. Incentives will always exist. Even before money, people were finding ways to get ahead and profit off of each other. It's a part of human nature. Capitalism may exacerbate it, but getting rid of money won't get rid of human nature.

4/13 1/15
this is just a moment in time, step aside and let it happen

Last edited by sillysapling; 04-21-2015 at 11:26 AM.
sillysapling is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#122 of 158 Old 04-21-2015, 03:29 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysapling View Post
...Yes, money is an incentive, but I disagree that the problem is capitalism. Incentives will always exist. Even before money, people were finding ways to get ahead and profit off of each other. It's a part of human nature. Capitalism may exacerbate it, but getting rid of money won't get rid of human nature.
What a positive view of capitalism and dim view of human nature. I tend to be the opposite - capitalism sucks and human nature is pretty awesome. I actually believe that absent a centralized government that imo exists to oppress so the rich can get richer (and powerful more powerful) we would all do pretty well figuring stuff out. We're more like bees than bears, we are a species that thrives from team work more than any other. We know that. We don't need big government to control us, on the contrary, we need to be free from big governments that oppress us.

They say people get more conservative as they get older, but in my case the opposite has been true.
Viola P is offline  
#123 of 158 Old 04-24-2015, 08:29 AM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
I think that an organization like the CPS can be reformed without a revolution (overturning capitalism). Lets hope so because I dont think capitalism is going away anytime soon.

I dont see reforms in sight though, because there is no political will. Who wants to side with parents who have been accused of abuse and neglect? (never mind that they are innocent, or accusations are "unsubstantiated")

Noone.

When parents rights are framed against children's rights, you will never get the political will for reform.
contactmaya is offline  
#124 of 158 Old 04-24-2015, 04:45 PM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,244
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
The current state of the US has me truly amazed at what humans will put up with. I really want to say that reform will come but I don't know if that's true. Look at what else we put up with. No paid parental leave, people constantly going into debt over medical care, etc. Now parents are increasingly altering their behavior out of fear of CPS and... nothing. Nothing gets done. A few people make noise about it, but how many people truly do anything?

I think we've actually struck the perfect balance of disenfranchisement. People have enough that they don't want to lose it, but they have so little that they aren't confident enough to stand up for themselves. The government should be proud of itself. The people should be horrified.

This is a problem that goes beyond CPS. We've got a national epidemic of authority figures abusing power. Doctors, teachers, police, politicians, it's happening all over the place and we're just rolling over and letting it happen. I know that I'm too busy trying to make ends meet to actually change anything.
Viola P likes this.

4/13 1/15
this is just a moment in time, step aside and let it happen
sillysapling is online now  
#125 of 158 Old 04-26-2015, 05:19 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post
I think that an organization like the CPS can be reformed without a revolution (overturning capitalism). Lets hope so because I dont think capitalism is going away anytime soon.

I dont see reforms in sight though, because there is no political will. Who wants to side with parents who have been accused of abuse and neglect? (never mind that they are innocent, or accusations are "unsubstantiated")

Noone.

When parents rights are framed against children's rights, you will never get the political will for reform.
Except that eventually if you alienate too many people the scales tip and there's mass civil disobedience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysapling View Post
The current state of the US has me truly amazed at what humans will put up with. I really want to say that reform will come but I don't know if that's true. Look at what else we put up with. No paid parental leave, people constantly going into debt over medical care, etc. Now parents are increasingly altering their behavior out of fear of CPS and... nothing. Nothing gets done. A few people make noise about it, but how many people truly do anything?

I think we've actually struck the perfect balance of disenfranchisement. People have enough that they don't want to lose it, but they have so little that they aren't confident enough to stand up for themselves. The government should be proud of itself. The people should be horrified.

This is a problem that goes beyond CPS. We've got a national epidemic of authority figures abusing power. Doctors, teachers, police, politicians, it's happening all over the place and we're just rolling over and letting it happen. I know that I'm too busy trying to make ends meet to actually change anything.
I've had similar thoughts many times. To me, once people start experiencing hunger then they will revolt. If bread gets to $10 a loaf and is so much that even a "normal" (middle class) family struggles to feed itself then the state will be in danger of being overthrown. There has never been a time in history where a massive majority has silently withered away while the oppressive but tiny minority dine on hors d'oeuvres. When push comes to shove people will fight.

So, the good news is that the government seems to be forgetting that there is a balance that needs to be maintained in order for the ruling minority to keep its reign. We are getting closer every day to a truly revolutionary situation. When ordinary housewives take to the streets in droves because their babies are hungry, the state revolution. A true revolution is never about left vs. right, it's always about survival.

Not saying that i want that though, they are bloody and messy and let's be honest, women almost always fare worse afterwards, hard as that may be to imagine given how bad it already is for us. Still, as time goes on, we do seem to be edging closer and closer to that point of no return.
Viola P is offline  
#126 of 158 Old 04-26-2015, 06:06 PM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,244
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
I don't think that we're going to reach that point, though. Conservatives that want to slash social programs are certainly pushing us in that direction- but I don't think we'll get there, because enough people push against it. There are enough safety nets. (WIC, SNAP, etc) Hunger is present, way too many kids go to school hungry and their free school lunch is basically the only meal they get each day- but they are getting that meal.

Modern technology is also really making it unlikely. We have far more ways to distract and temporarily amuse ourselves. Look at how many people are glued to smart phones and constantly playing brightly colored, repetitive games.

I don't want a full-on revolution, either. It's not gonna be pretty. I think that we can make changes without bloodshed- and we're making progress. Technology is actually somewhat of an equalizer. Increasingly more people are finding a way to make a living wage on their own creations that probably would never have been able to without the internet. The net is also a powerful tool of activism when used correctly.

It's just taking time. Far more time than if more people would actually do something.

4/13 1/15
this is just a moment in time, step aside and let it happen
sillysapling is online now  
#127 of 158 Old 04-26-2015, 08:49 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysapling View Post
I don't think that we're going to reach that point, though. Conservatives that want to slash social programs are certainly pushing us in that direction- but I don't think we'll get there, because enough people push against it. There are enough safety nets. (WIC, SNAP, etc) Hunger is present, way too many kids go to school hungry and their free school lunch is basically the only meal they get each day- but they are getting that meal.

Modern technology is also really making it unlikely. We have far more ways to distract and temporarily amuse ourselves. Look at how many people are glued to smart phones and constantly playing brightly colored, repetitive games.

I don't want a full-on revolution, either. It's not gonna be pretty. I think that we can make changes without bloodshed- and we're making progress. Technology is actually somewhat of an equalizer. Increasingly more people are finding a way to make a living wage on their own creations that probably would never have been able to without the internet. The net is also a powerful tool of activism when used correctly.

It's just taking time. Far more time than if more people would actually do something.
"I think that we can make changes without bloodshed- and we're making progress...It's just taking time."

I really like this conversation we're having so i hope you'll forgive me for disagreeing with you again, but i feel i have to.

Things objectively <b> aren't </b> getting better. The wages between the richest and the poorest are growing. The richest are taking more of the pie now than they have in many decades. The middle class is shrinking as is its buying power. More women are dying in childbirth. We've now discovered that the real wage gap is between mothers and non mothers, where mothers make 60-something cents to the man's dollar, and single mothers make fifty something cents to the mans dollar, while men's wages go up when they have children. There is massive violence against women that is normalized through our media and perpetuated in reality then ignored by the state, or, worse, perpetuated by the state.

Here's a single piece on income inequality. I know it's journalism but the figures can be found in bank reports too, i imagine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-...b_6249904.html

Here's a piece on rising maternal mortality:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5340648.html

Here's a single example of the epidemic of law enforcement ignoring/enabling sexual violence against women:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-report-finds:


Here's a link to wikipedia page describing the phenomenon sociologists at Stanford discovered, now aptly named the motherhood penalty and fatherhood bonus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherhood_penalty

And, of course, the subject of this thread. The growing military state perpetuating violence against good people, imprisoning and strongly coming down on anyone who dares to question anything.

So, you see, women think things have gotten better for us because we have the "privilege" of earning a wage. Meanwhile as soon as we use our ability to reproduce and are arguably in a more vulnerable situation as a result, society openly capitalizes on that and uses it as an opportunity to have an army of desperate low income wage earners who will say/do anything to feed their babies. And, the choice of whether or not to have more babies is not even entirely our own decision, since employers can opt out for religious/conscience purposes. Meanwhile women's bodies are splattered all over the media and used as sex objects to sell products, and females are still generally portrayed as being subordinate.

I don't see how any of this is an improvement over how things were in the 70's. Things are worse for everyone, except the tiny ruling minority, now than they were a few decades ago. And it's only getting worse. Because of greed. And we can count on that, can't we. They will never ever ever have enough. They will take more and more and more. And eventually we will be very hungry. Then things will change, because there won't be a choice anymore. I too wish it wouldn't have to come to this, but it will. Because, unfortunately, for every nice kind person there is a total as*hat. And if there was a war between 50 good and 50 evil people - who would win? Remember the evil people are, presumably, willing to do things the good would never do. So they have a natural advantage. So anyway, that's relevant because i don't believe we're all bad, i just believe that the bad people want to have power way more than the good do.

What a long rant!!!
Viola P is offline  
#128 of 158 Old 04-27-2015, 12:12 PM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,244
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
It's funny, all of that is actually proof progress is being made.

Progress never goes linear, there's always push-backs. We're in a time of massive upheaval, of course it's going to be rough sailing.

Women have more freedom and power than they have for all of US history and quite a good chunk of human history. We're nearing the point where women breadwinners are in the majority, increasingly more men are being stay at home dads and fathers are being expected to take a more equal and active role in parenting and housework. More companies are offering paid paternity leave. It's more possible for single women to raise kids, and more single women are choosing to have kids alone.

And, seriously, don't even try to school me on rape culture- but even there we're making progress. Do you seriously think that rape culture didn't exist in the 70s? That's ludicrous! More people actually acknowledge that a husband can rape his wife. We're starting to actually have a conversation about it rather than just allowing it to happen. More people are realizing that "boys will be boys" is screwed up. More people are realizing that 'she was asking for it' is bogus. More people are realizing that teaching kids about safe sex has to include CONSENT and not just condoms, that we have to take steps to raise kids who won't abuse each other and aren't so vulnerable to abuse. More people are realizing that wives and children aren't property, but people who deserve to be treated with respect.

But there's push-back, there's always push-back. I read awhile ago that the whole abortion debate is pretty much entirely because male doctors realized that women weren't relying on them and got pissed. Before that, herbal abortions were the norm. I'm sure you know the history of the medicalization of birth, including twilight births- but even there, you can't deny that we're going in a better direction. (Hard to go in a worse direction than just knocking folks out for birth...) The natural childbirth movement is making a lot of progress. Home birth is getting more accessible and more people are pushing hospitals to do better. Medical groups are recognizing that hospitals perform too many c-sections and are pushing hospitals to decrease.

Honestly, if you pay attention to it, the pendulum on hospital birth is fascinating, especially because not all hospitals are at the same state of progress. A lot of "Baby Friendly" hospitals push too far the other way, denying new parents choices when those choices aren't natural enough (so pushing against elective c-sections and trying to force breastfeeding), at the same time there are still hospitals that try to force c-sections and encourage formula feeding. Sooner or later we'll meet in the happy middle of "Practices that overall focus on the well-being of parent and baby while allowing for personal differences".

That push-back also happens on an individual level. People who like the way things were get scared of change and try to stop it. Some men get more violent because they're defensive of their privilege being taken (and it is NOT a male-only thing. Women get quite nasty towards minorities as well). It's the exact same as the increased violence against trans folk- it's not a sign that things are getting worse, it's ironically a sign that things are getting better. I'm sure that people would point to the news stories about transgender youth suicides and try to argue things are getting worse- but those kids have always been killing themselves, the fact that we're now acknowledging it and getting outraged is a HUGE step forward! That doesn't make it pleasant to see, but it doesn't erase the massive progress that's being made.

And then some of the problems are because we simply aren't keeping up with the progress that's being made. Our culture evolved on the basis of the nuclear family with a stay at home mother. Hell, we still have summer vacation, which was designed for farming families, despite our culture predominantly being non-farmers. We haven't caught up to families where every adult in the house works. That's a huge part of why there's still the "motherhood penalty"- because SOMEONE has to take care of the kids, SOMEONE has to stay home with the kids when they're sick, SOMEONE has to handle summer vacation, and that person is assumed to be the mother. Gradually, that's going to change- but it will take time. One way to make that change is to push men to step up. Push them to take paternity leave when they're able to and demand it when it's not an option. Push them to be the one to stay home with the kids when they're sick. Push them to do all the things that employers complain about women doing. If 80% of men demanded paid parental leave to stay home with their babies- guess what would suddenly be available to all workers?

It's never a smooth or easy course. Things are better than they were in the 70s in part because we're actually acknowledging the problems. Rape and domestic violence existed in the 70s. Sexism existed in the 70s. But now women are increasingly being able to do something about it and we're increasingly acknowledging it.

Also- do not forget the role that the internet, globalization, and an increasingly sensationalist media plays in all of this. People used to be more cut off, so they only knew about what happened in their community. News had a lot more control about what did and didn't get published. Nowadays, the media seeks out the most shocking stories and the internet means that we hear far more stories than we ever would have before. So a lot of things feel worse in part because we're constantly bombarded with crap.

This reminds me of the argument that comes up around Free Range Parenting. Our society is, objectively, SAFER. But we feel LESS safe. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VT6AMpOYEXM http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/18/us/wee...-gun-violence/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan-...b_1717100.html

A huge part of this is that our eyes are more open now than they ever have been. We're not only able to see more instances than we ever had before, we're ACKNOWLEDGING more than we ever have before. We're looking at domestic violence and rape and bigotry and saying "That's wrong" whereas just a few decades ago, they were status quo and no one noticed because it was just how things were. We talk about racism now far more than we did in the 50s. That's not because we're more racist than we were in the 50s, it's because we acknowledge racism more now than we did in the 50s. Which is the only way that we're going to make strides to address it.

The progress is far slower than it would be if people werne't so complacent, but progress is happening and has happened and will continue to happen. People will also continue to fight progress tooth and nail and return us to the time where white, straight cis men ruled supreme. They won't succeed, but the set-backs aren't any easier to handle.

And employers aren't allowed to totally block off birth control. They may be able to screw with insurance- but that's really just proof that we need to stop with private insurance as our main mode and institute national health care the way so many other countries have done.

(and for the love of all that is good- will the anti-birth control people who have no problem funding vasectomies please acknowledge the hypocrisy and just admit that they're sexist @#$@#bags already?)

4/13 1/15
this is just a moment in time, step aside and let it happen

Last edited by sillysapling; 04-27-2015 at 12:14 PM.
sillysapling is online now  
#129 of 158 Old 04-27-2015, 08:40 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
I pretty much disagree with all your examples of improvements.

Regarding things are better now than they have been for most of human history, this is the mass delusion we've been lead to believe so that we'll be more docile. It's a bald faced lie that women are freer now than ever. Sure, women were perhaps less free during most of agrarian history, but prior to that, which is where a wide majority of our history takes place, women and men lived in societies that were far more equal that the ones we live in now. Those were called hunter/gatherer societies.

With regards to rape culture in the 70's, i don't know, now people admit what rape is, but no one gives a shit. So i really don't see how that's an improvement either. Have the numbers of rape gone down? Is a woman today safer than she was 3 or 4 decades ago? Are rapists more likely to be brought to justice? The answer to all of these is no, so how have things improved? Knowledge doesn't equal improvement, improvement is more than a state of mind, there has to be some action, imo.

With regards to childbirth, again, i'm not sure that it is an improvement over the twilight days. Actually, it's funny you bring that up since i'm pretty sure in a few decades the medical model's current mo of drugging women with fentanol and getting them to agree to pitocin so as to not miss the hockey game/martini night then cutting open 1/3+ of women for NOTHING, hopefully eventually someone will see this for the travesty of justice that it is.

I think things were easier for my mom's generation than they are for ours. I think my mom got to give birth in much better conditions and with fewer risks and lower chance of death. I think the rape situation is more or less the same, albeit maybe we do talk about it more, but again, who cares, the things we do are the same, which is to treat victims with disdain and suspicion. etc...Sure, there were times when things were worse for women, but there were times when they were better, and the times when they were better far outweigh the times when they were worse. And the fact that it could be worse isn't very compelling for me anyway. I don't want to settle for second best when it comes to being treated fairly and with total autonomy.

All of this of course is partly motivated out of a deep concern for my daughter, who is only 1. I feel so bad for her, for how she will see women being treated, for how limited her options will be because of her VAG. It sucks.
Viola P is offline  
#130 of 158 Old 04-28-2015, 03:59 PM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,244
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
If you want to go back to hunter/gatherer, you can. There are still tribes that live that way, and people go to live with them for research purposes and I'm sure you can find one willing to adopt you permanently.

And that's the beautiful thing. People have choice now. In our parents' generation, things were so much worse. They were only easier because people had fewer choices. And that is easier- hell, I get overwhelmed just shopping at the thrift store because there's too many choices. Choice is hard. Going with the flow is easy. But it's not fulfilling and it left a lot of people badly hurt.

People do care about rape. A LOT of people care about rape. A lot more parents are intentionally raising their kids with "how do I teach my kids not to be rapists and not to be victims?" in mind. More people are taking responsibility for how we uphold rape culture. More people are focused on teaching people not to rape. More people are fighting back. And men are wholly included in that - most rape is committed by a small percentage of serial rapists, most men are disgusted by rape and when they realize that they're accomplices to the rapes of their loved ones, they do something about it.

If you don't like where you were born, it's easier to move. If you don't like the people you live near, you can get in contact with people across the world. If the education options in your city suck, you can access classes and knowledge online. Gender reassignment surgery is coming along well, more trans people are brave enough to not just be out but to have kids after transitioning. Queer people aren't just treated with respect, they've got families and we're working on making kids with two biological mothers. Kink is increasingly less of a big deal- and, yes, it's CRAP that the 50 Shades of Bullshit has a hand in that, but even that is making discussions of consent much more common. Formula means that now when breastfeeding doesn't work out, babies don't have to suffer. Modern medicine is making it so that people who once would have had to suffer or just die get a chance to live. And at the same time, if you're a cis straight person who wants to raise children 100% naturally and uphold traditional values, you've still got the resources and communities to do it! And, yeah, it goes overboard- but everything does. We're humans. We're imperfect. We're working on it. But we've got a lot of things to work on, limited time, and even more limited ability to work together.

The entire world is basically Twitch Plays Pokemon. Slow as hell, full of heartwrenching mistakes, spends ages trying to do incredibly simple things, occasionally you get people who intentionally set everyone back- but, overall, progress is made.

I hope for your daughter's sake that you open your eyes and realize the world isn't that bad. It's crap in a lot of ways- but it's not nearly as misogynist as you're hellbent on believing.

Your daughter can be anyone she wants to be. She can do anything she wants to do. And she'll face a bit of misogyny and sexist dirtwads, but if you raise her right she'll be able to give them the brush off they deserve as she smashes yet another glass ceiling beneath her heel. It sounds like the person who's most limiting your daughter is you.

4/13 1/15
this is just a moment in time, step aside and let it happen

Last edited by sillysapling; 04-28-2015 at 04:08 PM.
sillysapling is online now  
#131 of 158 Old 04-29-2015, 10:36 AM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysapling View Post
I hope for your daughter's sake that you open your eyes and realize the world isn't that bad. It's crap in a lot of ways- but it's not nearly as misogynist as you're hellbent on believing.

Your daughter can be anyone she wants to be. She can do anything she wants to do. And she'll face a bit of misogyny and sexist dirtwads, but if you raise her right she'll be able to give them the brush off they deserve as she smashes yet another glass ceiling beneath her heel. It sounds like the person who's most limiting your daughter is you.
I think you're very close to attacking me personally here and I don't appreciate it. Please don't judge me as a mother or act like my daughter needs rescuing from you, she doesn't, we don't. Please respect me even though i disagree with you, and i will endeavor to do the same.

In reality daughter can't do anything she wants. That's a huge line of b-llshit fed to us by the state so that we can believe that we are freer than we are and so that we have no one to blame but ourselves if things don't work out. In reality, my daughter's choices will be limited by her gender. There are certain paths in life that if she chooses to take them, will be made much more difficult, due solely to her gender. And she may flounder from her path as a result. I speak from experience, as a professional woman who has achieved some measure of success. My career path has run parallel to that of a man, my life partner, and his has been so much easier. I WILL NOT pretend that men and women have the same opportunities for advancement here, we don't. Women still have to work twice as hard for half the respect. And we earn far less for the same work, controlling for factors like absenteeism. And i fully intend on educating my daughter in such matters for at least two reasons: 1) so that she knows what she's getting herself into if she decides to pursue a professional career, and 2) so that she knows if it doesn't work out that it might not be because of a personal failing on her part but because of the insane barriers that society puts up to women's full participation.

Some things have gotten better, in some of the ways you describe. But, as you seem to agree, there hasn't been a reduction in the amount of violence that women face nor has there been an increase in the amount of convictions for crimes involving sexual violence against women. Women continue to be abused and violated when they give birth because, as a society, we still don't believe that a woman's right to her body is absolute and without qualification. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done.
Viola P is offline  
#132 of 158 Old 04-29-2015, 03:02 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Here's a summary of the findings of a study that support my claim that sexism is still a very significant problem for women today. Our opportunities are affected by our gender, not only because of what we do, and in order to change this we must first acknowledge it as the serious problem that it is. Let's not minimize it.

"Corell and Bernard created a study that looked at the hiring practices and preferences of employers.[4] They created hypothetical job seekers with resumes and other materials. 192 Cornell undergraduates were asked to evaluate them as candidates for a position as marketing director for a start-up communications company. They created two applicant profiles that were functionally equivalent. Their resumes were both very strong; they were very successful in their last jobs. When presenting these resumes, no one preferred one applicant over the other and they were seen as equally qualified. Next, a memo mentioning that the applicant was a mother of two children was added to one of the profiles. The resume was also modified to show that the applicant was an officer in a parent-teacher association. This time when participants were asked if they would hire these applicants, participants said they would hire 84 percent of the women without children, compared with only 47 percent of the mothers. These findings showed that mothers are 79 percent less likely to be hired.[3] In assigning a starting salary to the applicants, given a pay range appropriate for the job, participants offered non-mothers an average of $11,000 more than mothers.[4] An audit study also showed that prospective employers were less likely to call back mothers for interviews than non-mothers."

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...92189499,d.cGU
Viola P is offline  
#133 of 158 Old 04-30-2015, 11:44 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Wow! This debate is really fascinating...I hadn't realized how many comments had been posted here since I got my last notification.


I can see how the current wage and hiring gap between women and men and mothers and non-mothers is very unfair for those mothers who actually DO have the mindset to give their career the same priority that most fathers give to their careers. But in all honesty, I (as well as most of the mothers I know) don't have that mindset.


Most of us actually WANT the primary responsibility for attending to our children's immediate needs, and even when we also want or need to work, we tend to prefer the jobs that mesh the best with the needs of our families. And yes, some fathers are making similar choices, but I think the majority of women and men are somewhat neo-traditional (link below).


The hard part is that employers do tend to be biased based on their previous experiences. From my own experience, of working in a daycare center that went from being staffed solely by childless women to having a couple of mothers on the staff, everything went a lot smoother, and we had a lot fewer days when we weren't fully-staffed, when none of us had any kids.


But as sillysapling pointed out, if huger and huger numbers of dads start taking time off to care for their kids, things will change. In the current reality, most employers assume that a father is a million times more likely to prioritize his career than a man who's not a father, and they kind of assume the reverse about a mother.


http://family-studies.org/the-real-m...o-traditional/

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#134 of 158 Old 04-30-2015, 11:54 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
P.S. Back to the Free Range Kids debate, here's a link to a great post by Lenore Skenazy. I love her thoughts about "Fantasy as Policy."


http://www.freerangekids.com/letting...-legal-or-not/

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#135 of 158 Old 05-01-2015, 07:29 AM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...f-child-abuse/

I read the above article, and found that for once, the CPS acted correctly in this encounter. They got a report (a false one), came and had a look, were respectful, and then left without bothering the family further, as far as we know.

This would not happen in New York. The CPS is required to keep a case open for a mandatory 2 months, and then keep it on file for a range of 5-25 years ( i have seen different reports)
contactmaya is offline  
#136 of 158 Old 05-01-2015, 07:39 AM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
P.S. Back to the Free Range Kids debate, here's a link to a great post by Lenore Skenazy. I love her thoughts about "Fantasy as Policy."


http://www.freerangekids.com/letting...-legal-or-not/
Thanks for this link mammal_mama!

Quoted from the above article-

<<The solution is to forbid what I call “Fantasy as Policy.” Just because an authority can imagine something gruesome or terrifying happening to kids, that’s not enough justification to find the parents guilty of endangering them. The danger has to be immediate, indisputable and likely.>>

I love it too! Another simple solution.

Permit me to quote from one of the commenters of the above article

<<Havva -
........... “What is the law and/or regulation that would give Child Protective Services the authority to hold in goverment care an unaccompanied child who has been encountered in an outside area as opposed to a building, car, or other confined space?
The response:
“If CPS determines that the child under the age of 18 is in serious immediate danger, Family Law 5-709 authorizes CPS to not return the child to his or her parents and place the child in care.”
I would be surprised if the “serious immediate danger” standard is a sane one, if applied sanely. But to say two kids walking around Silver Spring at 5pm in spring qualify as being in “serious immediate danger” is absurd. I hope the Meitiv’s lawyers can use that to prove that CPS acted illegally. Family Law 5-709(d) also says that if they remove a per that law, CPS has to have the kid “thoroughly examined by a physician.” Did CPS do that?
Also why is CPS making this determination, alone, when it is the officer who has actual eyes on the situation (or alleged situation)? I get saying CPS has to sign off on taking the kid in. But frankly where are the checks in this system? It sounds like once a call is made, a single CPS agent can decide to have the kid taken, on their own accord. Combine that to the answer to question 8, that they have no time frame for when they have to review and decide if the child will continue to be held, or returned to parents. This system is so ripe for one bad decision, from one person, to just keep snow balling.
Best wishes to the Meitivs, I hope they can force a change.>>




I couldnt agree more. There are not enough checks in the system.


<<BL
“Obviously the problem is that “neglect” is left in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes that eye is wearing “Law & Order” contact lenses that see danger and mayhem where the naked eye sees only sidewalks and trees.”>>
contactmaya is offline  
#137 of 158 Old 05-01-2015, 07:50 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sophia's Correction
Posts: 8,185
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Quote:
The solution is to forbid what I call “Fantasy as Policy.” Just because an authority can imagine something gruesome or terrifying happening to kids, that’s not enough justification to find the parents guilty of endangering them. The danger has to be immediate, indisputable and likely.
contactmaya, this quote is brilliant so I will repeat it. It fits so much more in our current society of fear porn, than just CPS. We are inundated with fantastical imagination from all areas of our society, especially the media, government, and other institutions with vested interests, that leads to draconian laws, under the guise of 'keeping us safe'.

You cannot become anything but more beautiful.
Mirzam is online now  
#138 of 158 Old 05-01-2015, 02:44 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
...Most of us actually WANT the primary responsibility for attending to our children's immediate needs, and even when we also want or need to work, we tend to prefer the jobs that mesh the best with the needs of our families. And yes, some fathers are making similar choices, but I think the majority of women and men are somewhat neo-traditional (link below).


The hard part is that employers do tend to be biased based on their previous experiences. From my own experience, of working in a daycare center that went from being staffed solely by childless women to having a couple of mothers on the staff, everything went a lot smoother, and we had a lot fewer days when we weren't fully-staffed, when none of us had any kids.
The issue with this line of reasoning is that it seems to presuppose that the obligation is on mothers to modify their behaviours to fit into a male concept of work and work obligations, rather than thinking the obligation should be on society to make work more friendly for parents - fathers included. In so doing it blames the victim - mothers - of the discrimination and totally enables the discrimination to continue.

Plus, factually your hypothesis has been proved false. Yes there is ample anecdotal evidence of mothers being less good workers, but the stats don't support this as fact. As it turns out mothers are more productive than non-mothers. The hypothesis to explain this is that they face so much discrimination in the assumption that they're less committed that they over compensate - despite being paid significantly less.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegot...ut-less-money/

And note that this article is from Forbes - a well respected conservative financial publication.
Viola P is offline  
#139 of 158 Old 05-01-2015, 02:57 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
And here, the best article on the subject showing that working mothers are generally more productive than anyone:

http://jezebel.com/face-women-with-k...-ev-1654648743

QED!!
Viola P is offline  
#140 of 158 Old 05-02-2015, 07:56 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Those are both very good articles, Viola P. And I remembered that my job in childcare was one of the lower-paying jobs in our society, as are many other caregiving jobs -- so even though showing up every day on time, and being there for the entirety of your shift, play a HUGE part in how your productivity is measured in these jobs, in which you can be the most awesome teacher or caregiver in the world when you're actually THERE, but those depending on you, and others having to pick up your slack (and those depending on them) will suffer if you can't manage to there most of the time...


What defines productivity in caregiving jobs (or, say, line production jobs) is simply NOT the same as what defines productivity in many of the higher-paying and higher-status jobs out there, in which you can often complete the work quite brilliantly without even coming into the office -- i.e. while staying at home with your sick child. So it definitely is silly to measure productivity in all jobs with the same criteria that we measure productivity in jobs such as childcare where you can't do the job without being on-site.


However, one thing I did notice in the Jezebel article was that, even though mothers were more productive overall, mothers with preteens tended to be less so, so this may be a consideration for employers that don't expect an employee to stay there for the entire course of his or her career, because if a mother switched companies when her kids got older, this would mean they'd have her for the less productive years but not get to benefit from having her productivity shoot up when her kids were older and less dependent -- but then, if she left, maybe they could try to replace her with another older mom and benefit from HER increased productivity instead.


But of course, employee loyalty is a two-way street. Many people would be happy to work for the same company all their lives if they felt like their employer truly had their best interests at heart.


Also, just as career-minded mothers face biases, so do the fathers who choose to stay home or make their careers secondary to parenting. Employers tend to be a lot more suspicious of men with gaps in their resumes, and people in general tend to hold SAHDs in low esteem.


And really, the bias against working mothers hurts not just career-minded mothers, but also the partners and children depending on them as the primary breadwinner.


On a positive note, I believe that we are most definitely transitioning into a society in which more and more employers, and people in general, are approaching each person with an open mind rather than making limiting assumptions based on characteristics like race or gender, but we still have a long way to go. And I think discussions like this will be a tremendous catalyst for increasing humanity's consciousness in this area.
Viola P likes this.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#141 of 158 Old 05-02-2015, 08:26 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Those are both very good articles, Viola P. And I remembered that my job in childcare was one of the lower-paying jobs in our society, as are many other caregiving jobs -- so even though showing up every day on time, and being there for the entirety of your shift, play a HUGE part in how your productivity is measured in these jobs, in which you can be the most awesome teacher or caregiver in the world when you're actually THERE, but those depending on you, and others having to pick up your slack (and those depending on them) will suffer if you can't manage to there most of the time...


What defines productivity in caregiving jobs (or, say, line production jobs) is simply NOT the same as what defines productivity in many of the higher-paying and higher-status jobs out there, in which you can often complete the work quite brilliantly without even coming into the office -- i.e. while staying at home with your sick child. So it definitely is silly to measure productivity in all jobs with the same criteria that we measure productivity in jobs such as childcare where you can't do the job without being on-site.


However, one thing I did notice in the Jezebel article was that, even though mothers were more productive overall, mothers with preteens tended to be less so, so this may be a consideration for employers that don't expect an employee to stay there for the entire course of his or her career, because if a mother switched companies when her kids got older, this would mean they'd have her for the less productive years but not get to benefit from having her productivity shoot up when her kids were older and less dependent -- but then, if she left, maybe they could try to replace her with another older mom and benefit from HER increased productivity instead.


But of course, employee loyalty is a two-way street. Many people would be happy to work for the same company all their lives if they felt like their employer truly had their best interests at heart.


Also, just as career-minded mothers face biases, so do the fathers who choose to stay home or make their careers secondary to parenting. Employers tend to be a lot more suspicious of men with gaps in their resumes, and people in general tend to hold SAHDs in low esteem.


And really, the bias against working mothers hurts not just career-minded mothers, but also the partners and children depending on them as the primary breadwinner.


On a positive note, I believe that we are most definitely transitioning into a society in which more and more employers, and people in general, are approaching each person with an open mind rather than making limiting assumptions based on characteristics like race or gender, but we still have a long way to go. And I think discussions like this will be a tremendous catalyst for increasing humanity's consciousness in this area.
Yes, I especially like this part:

"Mui notes that these are, of course, privileged women. They are highly educated and obviously gainfully employed. Their pregnancies were likely planned, and were made considerably more manageable by maternity leave and paid time off. They probably all have childcare or nannies or systems in place to be able to meet work deadlines and commitments through all the usual inconveniences of young children that force many less privileged working gals to miss hella time off for runny noses and mild fevers, to say nothing of the sheer number of days off the average daycare takes off that parents must scramble to cover throughout the school year."

To me what they're saying here is that the issue isn't mothers in the workplace or mothers working, it's the lack of support for working mothers. I think we tend to put the blame on the shoulders of women, while really the problem is that society should change to accommodate our needs. The fact that the work world is largely still built by men and for men (with men in mind) is strong evidence of ongoing gender based oppression.
Viola P is offline  
#142 of 158 Old 05-03-2015, 06:53 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
I see it more as the world being built by and for the privileged. From an employer's perspective, as long as they can pick and choose among different kinds of workers, they're going to go for the demographic most likely to give them a good return on their investment in the short term. They're not going to think, "Well, in ten years, this mother of two small children is going to be able to largely make up for all the time she had to miss when her kids were small" -- because they'll be assuming that she may be working for a completely different employer by then.


I don't see this as a situation desired by the majority of the world's men -- it's more like something that works out well for those men and women who are in the top one percent. Most men want their wives to enjoy success and be happy in whatever work they're doing -- both because they love them and because that makes their own lives that much more pleasant.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#143 of 158 Old 05-03-2015, 08:35 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
I totally disagree with you. I don't think the article was saying women with young children are less productive. And i don't believe that women with young children are less productive. I think that women with children are generally more productive, regardless of the age of the children. I suspect that this is partly because women with children are constantly having to prove that they are productive and worthy of the wage they're earning (since pretty much everyone assumes that they're less productive, regardless of how many statistics that show otherwise, as this conversation has largely proved as well); and also partly because women are generally expected to do more for less because women are less valued. I do believe that if societies were more mother friendly - by which i mean having paid maternity leave for everyone for a year, state funded childcare, etc... then this would go a long way towards leveling the gender playing field in the workforce, and to me that is something that is important. I strongly disagree with the commonly held belief that it comes down to individual choices - especially the choices of individual women.

Also, academics don't comprise the 1%, just saying.

Feminism is important and relevant. Please let there be someone else out there who thinks that sexism is real and that feminism is relevant and important.
Viola P is offline  
#144 of 158 Old 05-04-2015, 03:56 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
I was going by where Mui was quoted as saying that the first child resulted in a 9% drop in productivity, and so on...it added up to a total drop of 33% with three preteens.


Also, when I talked about the 1%, I wasn't talking about academics; I was talking about business owners -- but of course, that's a lot more than 1% of the population, too. But the point I was trying to make was that men don't benefit from their wives and partners being discriminated against in the workplace, so this isn't really a "man's world" kind of thing -- it's more of a "rich folks and/or business owners -- granted, more than 1% of the population, but nowhere near the majority -- being focused on short-term profit."


Edited to add the link to the article that I was referring to: http://jezebel.com/face-women-with-k...-ev-1654648743

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).

Last edited by mammal_mama; 05-04-2015 at 06:06 AM.
mammal_mama is offline  
#145 of 158 Old 05-04-2015, 06:26 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viola P View Post
Feminism is important and relevant. Please let there be someone else out there who thinks that sexism is real and that feminism is relevant and important.


I think you'll actually find a lot more people agree with you than with me. In my experience, any questioning of the narrative of the most vocal group of feminists is usually viewed as a form of sacrilege.


I think the main reason you're not hearing more about it here is that this thread's about a somewhat different topic -- and yet, it does make sense to look at issues like CPS's involvement in families within the larger societal and historical context in which this involvement is occurring.


For example, we are now at a place where increasing numbers of two-income families means fewer adults are at home to keep an eye on what's going on in the neighborhood, more young children are in after-school daycare programs and are not coming straight home from school and going out to play in the neighborhood, and in some cases, two-income families translates into more and more families being in a position to pay for lots of special classes and activities for their kids -- and, of course, electronic games are fun and can lesson kids' urge to head out that door, too...


Such that the previous norm of kids having tons of free time, and tons of freedom to figure out how they want to spend that free time, can seem extremely alien and even neglectful to your average middle class person.


But I've been greatly heartened by seeing the huge amount of social support for the Meitivs. As this issue makes it through the courts, and also the court of public opinion, I think they'll actually end up blazing a trail into a much better situation for kids.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#146 of 158 Old 05-04-2015, 12:06 PM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Without a doubt!




<<Originally Posted by Viola P Feminism is important and relevant. Please let there be someone else out there who thinks that sexism is real and that feminism is relevant and important.>>



contactmaya is offline  
#147 of 158 Old 05-04-2015, 12:10 PM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viola P View Post
The fact that the work world is largely still built by men and for men (with men in mind) is strong evidence of ongoing gender based oppression.
On the issue of feminism, this is the crux of it in my opinion.
contactmaya is offline  
#148 of 158 Old 05-04-2015, 12:20 PM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I see it more as the world being built by and for the privileged.
This is reminiscent of the debates i remember having as an undergraduate- which is the foremost cause of oppression, class or patriarchy? I always argued, patriarchy. Asking the same question today, I believe both can be true. There is no doubt that our modern industrialized culture is based on the concept of autonomous male individual, and women have to work around it. Reforms are made, and things have improved. But the core doesnt change. Thats why there is still the dilemma of the SAHM and the WOHM.

But wealthy women have it better. They have more choices. The very wealthiest, have it best of all. If i were a millionaire, as a woman, i would choose to stay at home, and when i needed a break, I would pay someone to watch the kids. I would set up some kind of business, and establish a successful career at no cost to my motherhood role.

I dont have that choice, so i just do everything myself, and I obviously had to forsake a successful career because of it.

With wealth, comes power, no matter what your gender. But that doesnt change the fact that every society on this planet, has its roots in patriarchy. I always say, patriarchy, been there, done that.

How does this relate to CPS? Poor people are targeted and dont have the means to defend themselves. Those poor people though, are more often than not, poor women. And poverty gets worse and much harder to escape when you bring children into the equation. This is true of rich countries, as much as its true of poor countries.

The poor, are overwhelmingly mothers and their children.
Viola P likes this.
contactmaya is offline  
#149 of 158 Old 05-04-2015, 12:24 PM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,299
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
But I've been greatly heartened by seeing the huge amount of social support for the Meitivs. As this issue makes it through the courts, and also the court of public opinion, I think they'll actually end up blazing a trail into a much better situation for kids.
Yes, it truly is heartening!
contactmaya is offline  
#150 of 158 Old 05-04-2015, 08:39 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
I agree that the state taking an increasing interest in parental judgement calls affects women more than anyone since the majority of people that come under its purview are the poor and women and children are a wide majority of the poor.

I get sad when people argue against feminist interpretations/observations/points by alluding to some bigger, more important, oppression or injustice. Then it becomes a competition and women's issues are always last on a very long list. I don't think there needs to be a competition at all. I think ALL of the justice issues are important, and i'm not going to say equally important because i don't want to measure them, especially not in absolute terms. But class based oppression sucks and so does gender based oppression and race based oppression and the war on the environment. These are all very important issues and the fact that i talk about things from a feminist perspective doesn't mean i'm saying that women's issues should win the competition of what's most oppressive. Let's not have a competition at all. Let's acknowledge that things are tougher for women of most (or maybe) every class. Let's acknowledge that this benefits men and works against women.

Strange times we live in.
Viola P is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 15,978

174 members and 15,804 guests
1babysmom , acegmom , adiejan , agentofchaos , AlaskAnne , alexis161 , AllTomorrowsParties , Amatullah0 , americanjuly , AMG , apeydef , aylasebmom , badwolf092087 , baltmom , bananabee , BarefootBrooke , Belle78 , belltree , birdinflight , blissful_maia , bluefaery , Bostonmomm , Brittee , cardigan , catladymeow , Celestical , chiefmir , clovebucket , CortLong , Crazybean , Cricket VS , cwlittle1 , Daffodil , Daisy8s , Dakotacakes , dayloveme , Dear_Rosemary , Deborah , DungeonQueen , easttowest , Eavesdrop , EllaD , Emanresu , EmilyCTaylor , emmy526 , EMRguy , EmsMom , eternalw , etsdtm99 , Evelynflower , fairyswizzle , frugalmama , fruitfulmomma , funfunkyfantastic , FyerFly , germin8 , girlie1125 , goldenwillow , greenemami , happymamma85 , HillbillyHarmony , hillymum , hottmomma , Hybrid Mama , ian'smommaya , IntoTheRoseGarden , IsaFrench , JayaSky , jazzmom74 , jcdfarmer , Jessica765 , jessymama , JillBFit , JMalik , joycef , kalechip , Katc8910 , Katherine73 , Kelleybug , kindofcrunchy82 , kittycat1 , KrisInDenmark , kyradark333 , LadyAnnibal , lalalovely , laneysprout , LeighPF , Leyah5683 , lilacvioletiris , lilgreen , lilmissgiggles , LiLStar , LilyTiger , Linda on the move , Lizzylynn , loba , luckiest , mama24-7 , mamabear0314 , MamaChick , mamamargo , mariamadly , MDoc , mearph , MeepyCat , MegaMama1 , meghanmetz , Milk8shake , Mirzam , MN BabyDust , mnj77 , moominmamma , MountainMamaGC , mrsvintage , mssweetchelle , muddie , mysticmomma , NaturallyKait , Nbinkerd , neemoomommy , Newbie12 , newdad555 , nikkialys , oaksie68 , oasis84 , pumabearclan , quantumleap , Rachey , rainydaywoman , rcb215 , RollerCoasterMama , rootzdawta , RosemaryV , rubelin , Salsamelissa , samaxtics , SandiMae , sarafl , satkins , Shmootzi , siennaflower , sillysapling , smilingprego , sofreshsoclean , spiritofthings , Springshowers , stegenrae , sukilove , SummerStorm22 , Teles , TheBugsMomma , thebyr , thekoz , Thursday Girl , Tigerle , tomsmom31 , Tracy , TrishWSU , Turner58800 , Turquesa , vegaslala , verticalscope , Voondrop , wassernixe , witchypants
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.