COMMENTS: 191
The Cards Are Stacked Against Mothers in America -- Here's How We Can Fix It
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
Joan Blades: In 2005, I was shocked to learn that, though there isn't as big wage gap when it comes to women without children, there is a huge wage gap for mothers. Since 82 percent of women become mothers, women still have a long way to go before they achieve pay equity. The fact that single moms make about 60 cents to a man's dollar explains pretty easily why there are so many women and children living in poverty, and the profound bias against moms in hiring and wages also goes a long way to explain why there are so few women in leadership. I don't think many Americans are aware of the deep bias against mothers in the workplace.
MomsRising.org was launched Mother's Day 2006, along with The MotherHood Manifesto, the book Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner and I wrote to tell the story about how the cards are stacked against mothers in this country and how we can fix that. We already have over 130,000 members.
Grass-roots engagement of mothers makes a big difference when speaking out for paid family leave, after-school programs, quality childcare, paid sick days, fair work practices and getting toxics out of our homes. Long term, I want to see MomsRising.org engage millions of citizens to be a grass-roots support system for good leaders, good policies and a family-supporting culture. Parents think long-term. As a society, we need powerful grassroots voices that support policies that are going to be good for the next generation and beyond. Too often, businesses don't think beyond the next quarter, and politicians don't think beyond the next election.
Hazen: I was struck by the concept that was developed by the Mom's Rising team called "maternal profiling." Can you explain?
Blades: Many employers don't want to hire moms, or they don't advance them in their careers. The opening story in the motherhood manifesto was about a single mom who could not get a job, because at interview after interview she was asked, "Are you married?" "Do you have children?" Nobody wanted to hire a single mom.
Admittedly there are 22 states where the employer is not legally supposed to ask about marital status. That said, wedding rings are a common giveaway. The biggest deal is kids, though. A recent study found mothers were 79 percent less likely to be offered a job given equally qualified job applicants. The New York Times reported on maternal profiling as a new term this year, and frankly, that is important. Naming this practice identifies the challenge.
Hazen: What is your take on the well-publicized "mommy wars?" Is there really a lot of conflict between working mothers and nonworking mothers? And if so, what is the solution?
Blades: From personal experience and talking to others, I'd say the "mommy wars" are a trumped-up media conflict. Most mothers help each other. Just the other day I was talking to a mom who described picking up her working friend's kids after school and then being able to drop her kid with that friend on the weekend when her daughter was younger. A mom she heard on NPR talking about a similar arrangement had reminded her of hers. Most of us have worked or will be again if we aren't now. Mothers tend to be understanding about other mothers too. And, yes, there are always exceptions, but it is not the norm.
Hazen: Is there a lot of difference between Clinton and Obama on Mom's Issues? And how do they contrast with McCain? What might change if a Democrat is in the White House in January?
Blades: Happily, both Clinton and Obama have very good policy on family issues. McCain has been less forthcoming on family issues. I was absolutely appalled at his response to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. He didn't show up to vote, and he made a statement saying he would not vote for it because women needed more education and training. He is talking apples and oranges. More women are graduating from college than men. We are talking about equal pay for equal work. This country had an enforceable equal pay law from 1964 to May 2007. The House passed the Fair Pay Act last year to restore the law. The Senate brought it up this year, and 43 senators voted against! We are stalled and working hard to move three senators.
Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire for 19 years, got paid less than any man. Didn't learn until near the end of her employment that she was earning less, and the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision overturned her award, saying she needed to bring her suit within 180 days of the first discriminatory act! They gutted the ability to enforce the law! What employee knows when they are getting less than others within 180 days of the first discriminatory pay check?
Hazen: I heard you mention the Fair Pay Restoration Act. Can you tell us about that and what its chances are for success?
Blades: There is a great coalition of groups pressing the Senate to do the right thing here. I have to believe that we are going to succeed because anything other than that is not acceptable. Join us!
Hazen: It seems that when you take a close look at the philosophy and approach of Mom's Rising, that you are interested in celebrating different approaches to work and how people use their time, and not just women. Is that a fair assessment, and what would be different in a better world of work?
Blades: We have a section of our website devoted to "open, flexible work"; people need to be able to both work and have lives outside of work. This is good for families, good for society and good for individuals. In fact, it turns out that businesses are finding that flexible work is good for business too. Glorification of extreme work happens in our society, and frankly it is a bizarre manifestation of the Puritan work ethic that wouldn't even please the Puritans. Remember the priorities used to be God, family and work? Work first is simply perverse and unsustainable.
Hazen: Since we are so dependent on consumption for the so called "health of our economy," what would happen if we adopted less consumptive, more earth-friendly ways of being? Might we have economic crashes and people out of jobs, or are those just scare tactics?
Blades: I appreciate Peter Barnes' book Capitalism 3.0. We can create and consume intellectual property in vast quantities, not hurt the earth and support the economy. Clearly, limited resources need to be consumed sustainably. This is something we should be applying our intellects to.
Hazen: What's your message on Mother's Day? How should all of us be aware of the fact the history of Mother's Day is really about social change, and what progress would you like to see us make -- men and women -- over the next year or two? And, finally, what can women do? How do they get involved in Mom's Rising?
Blades: So kind of you to ask. I of course believe that one great thing to do is join http://www.momsrising.org/.
Then, of course, inviting all your friends to join us by sending them our super fun yet remarkably educational Mother's Day card would be a great second step.
I'd like to see us turn things around in this country so that having a child isn't the top cause of a poverty spell for families. I'd like to see more women in leadership. I'd like to see 90 percent of Americans voting.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on May 10, 2008 4:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Mother, heal thyself.
Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: And yet . . .
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: elPedro on May 10, 2008 4:22 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I don't have any discourse.
I work in an office where the women get paid more than men in the same job titles and don't have to do any heavy lifting, dirty work, or additional responsibilities of the men workers with the same job description.
Equal pay for equal work. I support that idea. And more pay for men if they have additional (mostly hidden) job responsibilities that the women don't have to do because they might hurt themselves or break a nail.
But what I'd really like to know is why would ANYONE bring a baby into this world of 7 billion with the CERTAIN economic collapse of our fascist rejeeeme (hiccup)and the future of this world in 20 or 30 years. I can't even imagine how it will be in 10 years. (Maybe I read too much Alternet.)
Why don't we think about the children? Maybe it's time to stop manufacturing babies. Maybe feed the 30 percent of the world that are starving first, before our own children have the same fate.
Does anyone realize the cost of raising a child until age 18, before college? And how much worst off we are after 7 years of the rich sucking our blood?
If daddy is still responsible for more than half of the support, he should be getting paid more. Much, much more is expected from men. At one time daddy was expected to provide 100 percent of their (baby and mommy) support. Back in the days of living wages.
I would like to see the details of all these reports that claim that women make so much less than men, as well. In what specific fields are we talking about and where are the actual statistics? I suspect the findings are skewed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wow.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: elPedro
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: elPedro
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: Karina
» RE: Pedro
Posted by: flaca
» RE: Pedro
Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Pedro
Posted by: Cathyblj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: justicenow on May 10, 2008 5:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What makes my circumstance bearable is knowing that they will be fighting the good fight when they grow up. Other moms have helped me enormously and I make it a point to do the same for other single moms. Single mom networking is priceless. Appreciation from outside is really nice too, somebody sees our struggle! Thanks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: appreciation
Posted by: tngreen
» but why?
Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: maybe because she had no idea of what he'd do before they had children?
Posted by: photon's feather
» i agree with most of what you wrote
Posted by: e rice
» Then you might want to know
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Then you might want to know
Posted by: e rice
» the father failed, you moron
Posted by: e rice
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: Moira61
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: Cathyblj
» you're right
Posted by: e rice
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: e rice
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: photon's feather
» bravo!
Posted by: e rice
» Oh! So the lady is a fellow sufferer...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: It's Called "Pro-Choice, You Moron
Posted by: elPedro
» RE: It's Called "Pro-Choice, You Moron
Posted by: EJ
» RE: appreciation
Posted by: arthurford
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 5:41 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a deep and growing suspicion of the real agenda of many of the left-wing 501(c) nonprofit corporate news sites - Democracy Now, Alternet, CounterPunch, the Nation, Mother Jones, the Guerilla News Network, and a few others - sites which promote themselves as "liberal" or "left wing" but who are ruled and guided by corporate boards and mysteriously secretive foundations.
The mix is indeed the message - and Alternet works hard to spin down stories that might be harmful to the wealthiest sectors of corporate America, and to move the discussion off into "safe" areas, like race, gender, sexual preference, etc - socially acceptable liberalism that doesn't threaten the American system of autocratic, corporate-sponsored political rule.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Joan Blades is also a cofounder of MoveOn.org -
Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Joan Blades is also a cofounder of MoveOn.org -
Posted by: realmuzik
» RE: Joan Blades is also a cofounder of MoveOn.org -
Posted by: asilsfable
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 5:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the present site will let it post.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Compare that to some of the more reputable sites, like PR Watch:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: GPFrank
» RE: Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» It sounds like charismatic leadership and regularization.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: Richard House
» RE: Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 6:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Physician, heal thyself!
Posted by: photon's feather
» very true, but
Posted by: e rice
» certainly very true, but
Posted by: photon's feather
» missed it
Posted by: e rice
» RE: missed it - No, got it
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 6:28 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the bogus claims about weapons of mass destruction? Those were never investigated, and no long-term series of stories was ever published by the left-wing press, or any other American press outlet.
What about the stolen 2000 election? What about the fraudulent and rigged electronic voting systems? Why has that all been forgotten by the lefty press?
What about domestic spying and the illegal use of government agents to track and infiltrate anti-war and anti-globalization groups, even extending to the use of government agent provocateurs dressed as protestors?
What about the bogus 911 Truth Movement, that got sooo much coverage here at Alternet and Democracy Now? - and yet Alternet never ran a single story pointing to the fact that 911 Truth is mostly made up of government agent provocateur and PR types, who use the typical "I'm a nut, and so are all my acquaintances" approach to smearing antiwar activists.
I don't see a daily list of the impeachable crimes of GW Bush here at Alternet.
There's not even any footage of the Iraq war.
This site, my friends, along with much of the rest of the left-wing and right-wing activist press, is in my opinion a fraud. In the late 1990s (and even before) there was an effort made by private foundations to set up a large number of internet web and radio "alternative news sites" that would appear to be liberal, but whose real purpose was to help shape public opinion and keep the public under control.
This is really apparent when you look at the stories that the alternative press refuses to cover - the fall 2001 anthrax attacks, the rise of the public-private government-industry combines linked to nuclear and biological warfare activities (Democracy Now has never even mentioned Battelle Memorial Institute), the larger foreign trade agenda of the United States - oh, it gets covered, but the coverage is similar to that of the New York Times or the Washiington Post - a story gets buried on the back page.
In reality, a story is "covered" when a reporter or team of reporters writes a long series of stories that come out every month for a year or more, and which can then be repackaged in book form.
That's what traditional journalism was really all about - and the problem today is not that people don't care enough to read such exposes, but that the corporate press - left, center, and right - doesn't want to do such investigative work.
Now, wake up and rub those cobwebs out of your eyes. . .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thanks, 'professor'
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Thanks, 'professor'
Posted by: tngreen
» RE: Thanks, 'professor'
Posted by: photon's feather
» I've always said that my posts are all about media propaganda, first and foremost.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Thanks, 'professor'
Posted by: joe2171
» Wow. I never considered that before, but ...
Posted by: terradea42
» thanks for the laugh, terradea42!
Posted by: Smackback
» RE: A few thoughts on Alternet and the corporate propaganda system:
Posted by: Lector
» You can always identify a wingnut troll by his Soros fixation
Posted by: Smackback
» RE: You can always identify a wingnut troll by his Soros fixation
Posted by: Lector
» Whose ya daddy? Richard Mellon Scaife or George Soros?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on May 10, 2008 6:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet, the "Left" is assumed to favor women's rights even though we hear no demands for every woman's right to decide if and when to birth a child, or criticism of her macho husband demanding she spend her life pregnant in the kitchen. That's because corporations need all the cheap labor they can get and exploding masses of poor people flooding across borders provides plenty, with silent Left wing consent.
But if women were indeed given the legally protected right to decide if and when to birth their children, only a few would choose 5, 6, or 7, a few would choose none at all, but the vast majority would consent to birth no more than 1, 2 or 3 - and thus the global population would decline and stabilize to live in balance with the Earth's ability to feed us, and there would also be plenty of other resources for a smaller and wiser population.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good point - and there is, as usual, a connection to 1930s era ideology here:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Fascinating history. Today it is...
Posted by: Last Chance
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 10, 2008 7:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» women as breadwinners
Posted by: e rice
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: notthatsimple
» so, make the children suffer?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: well...
Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: Moira61
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: writer7
» RE: i see how it works
Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: EJ
» RE: CALL YOUR MOTHER!
Posted by: mountain19
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luzmejor on May 10, 2008 7:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish everyone would stop fighting each other and realize that we are all being played, for fun and profit, by professional politicians.
What ordinary citizens want is a chance to live without everyone else butting into their private lives.
Would anyone care to estimate the chances of that, in this era of megachurch sex businesses masquerading as promoters of "Christian" beliefs?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» absolutely right
Posted by: e rice
» beyond politics -
Posted by: Last Chance
» ever read any history?
Posted by: e rice
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stanlca on May 10, 2008 7:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do some mothers earn less than other equally qualified workers in similar or same positions because they actually work and accomplish less?
Yes.
I'm an HR manager and I see this all the time. The women who come in late, go home early and/or call in frequently because of their family/children's needs. Make no mistake, just because they aren't there doesn't mean their work isn't. Someone is doing it and it's usually their co-workers who are also earning more and getting promoted sooner.
I'm all for a flexible work enviornment, but you simply must do the work expected of you. If you are focusing on other obligations, you are not focused on work.
I could go on about the differences between how different mother's (married, divorced and single) approach the work environment, but I have work to do!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: America falling behind
Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: some moms may need to earn less
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» I think you as an HR ?manager? should be fired..
Posted by: Turiye
» RE: I think you as an HR ?manager? should be fired..
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: some moms may need to earn less
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thinkverybig on May 10, 2008 8:14 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coming soon is www.wemustchange.org
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: writer7
» Ridiculous!
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: joe2171
Comments are closed-
Posted by: e rice on May 10, 2008 8:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there are about 15 other countries with lower rates of infant mortality.
twenty years ago, america ranked 13th and 11th in the world.
only three countries in the world do not provide government mandated maternal leave--austratlia provides a year's unpaid maternal leave. only papua-new guinea and america do not have government mandated maternal leave. a few european nations provide for paternal leave.
research day care for yourselves.
a recent study reported that, while some men do a bit more housework than 30 years ago, not much has changed in the amount of housework men do today, even with more women working full time.
about 20 years ago, i read about a study that reported tht 75% of divorced men do not pay court-mandated child support--this isn't alimony, it's child support. the same study reported that 50% of divorced men never see their children again. for some reason, i doubt the current statistics would be much better. although the federal government passed a law that garnished deadbeat dads' wages, because so many women ended up on welfare without child support, one alternet reader says the current federal backlog of deadbeat dad cases 'would choke a goat.'
acording to one study, thanks to the religious right's successful war against birth control clinics, 80% of rural counties do not have birth control clinics.
viagra was covered by insurance companies the day it hit the market. the insurance companies will not cover birth control pills, not even for women with endometriosis.
and what do the men in this country do to improve the situation? to protect their wives, sisters, and daughters?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: how america treats mothers
Posted by: Dianka
Comments are closed-
Posted by: photon's feather on May 10, 2008 8:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've known and seen it first-hand. Oh, get so-and-so to work the holiday/later the day before a holiday/come in on the holiday, etc.: (s)he doesn't have to prepare a meal/doesn't have a family to worry about/doesn't have family out of town, etc. Or, Let so-and-so work the later hours (or overtime): (s)he doesn't have kids to pick up after school, from daycare, etc. That doesn't mean that so-and-so doesn't have a peraonal life and/or wouldn't appreciate being able to conduct personal business at a reasonable hour. Emergencies are worse, as of course there's no being able to anticipate them.
In very small companies (or departments), there's always someone who is burdened with the inconvenience - and it's ususally the same person (or few people).
Some of this also applies to mothers that are not single, as well as to fathers that accept responsibility for a large part of child care.
Do any of these parents ever stop to think that perhaps so-and-so has distant family or very close friends that (s)he would like to invite to dinner or go, (perhaps out of town), to visit? Or that perhaps because so-and-so works the same job, (s)he has earned the same right to a holiday - however (s)he defines it?
It's surprising how many of us choose not to have children, only to discover that those who chose otherwise expect us to share the inconvenience - and here I am not talking about real emergencies. Why? (Working childless couples don't subsidize single childless people's rent, even though it's just as high: a single person needs as many rooms as a couple - plus as much heat, and nearly as much furniture, electricity, etc.)
Personally, I make a distinction between single mothers that never bothered to worry about how they were going to raise their child(ren) without a father, and single mothers who honestly believed that their child(ren)would have a responsible father, i.e., were later widowed or divorced or abandoned. The former were irresponsible; the latter were unfortunate. (Those single mothers who were victims of force also belong in the latter group.)
If a woman's boyfriend is irresponsible or abusive, what makes her think a baby is going to change him? Or that marriage is going to change him, for that matter?
Yes, I know that irresponsible fathers are a problem, and I know that it is unfair that women are saddled with the greater share of the burdensome aspects of parenthood. That is, however, a well-known fact of life. Any woman who doesn't keep it in mind is a fool.
We know what causes children, and it is usually possible to avoid them. There aren't any little ones running around with my genes. That's by choice. If I were a woman, I would certainly be at least as careful. (Sometimes it means 'going without.' Too bad. I guarantee nobody will die of deprivation.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» ahem
Posted by: e rice
» RE: ahem
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: ahem
Posted by: e rice
» RE: ahem
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: ahem
Posted by: photon's feather
» You're right about everything you wrote, but the problem is you're arguing with victimization.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
Comments are closed-
Posted by: euphobot on May 10, 2008 8:44 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hazen would serve the future better if he wern't stumped by this gatekeeper.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» what, and whose, flaming statistics?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: Do it for the kids
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terradea42 on May 10, 2008 9:00 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for protecting mothers in the workplace; this is no time to be having babies. Food shortages, energy shortages, war, global warming ... the world you live in needs your time and effort, not your children. Stop breeding and start fighting for freedom, justice and liberty.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Motherhood is Seriously Overrated
Posted by: Karina
» RE: Motherhood is Seriously Overrated
Posted by: elPedro
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flaca on May 10, 2008 9:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: flaca
Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: flaca
Posted by: joe2171
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 9:20 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mention sources or other articles emphasizing
contrary views.
Mother Jones should state in front of articles, especially controversial ones whether they endorse the particular point of view or state generally that the publishing of and does not necessarily constitute endorsement. The articles such as the one on recycling nuclear fuel and the one on oil contain truth and arguments worth thinking about. For instance
the total carbon emission from the whole nuclear cycle is about 1/3 of that per watt produced by fossil fuel. They are making a positive step. On the other hand every advocate of some kind of energy should always include the reminder that the first priority is conserving rather than running amuck.
The recent brouhaha about Obama's former minister gives rise to the point about being too negative; that the threnody about the rulers having so much power and ability to oppress leaves people in the slough of despondency and dependency rather than encouraging them to act.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: e rice on May 10, 2008 9:51 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's take Mother's Day, originally started by a woman who worked hard to raise living conditions in the West Virginia coal country, where union members were routinely murdered:
"Ann Reeves Jarvis worked to bring the mothers together and to mothers work groups to help improve sanitary conditions in the community and to reduce infant mortality in the area. Her daughter Anna Jarvis declared when she died that she would create a day to honor all mothers in an effort to honor her own mother. So she came back here in 1907 to hold a memorial service for her mother, and then in 1908 they had the first Mother’s Day service."
So, what is Don Hazen doing here? Why, what he always does - he tries to recast this as a gender issue, not as a basic human rights issue - when the latter is what inspired the actual founder, who, we learn:
"Anna Jarvis wanted mother’s day to be simple but meaningful. She wanted sons and daughters to write letters to their mothers—not to sign their name at the bottom of a greeting card. She wanted mothers to rest on this holiday. So, Jarvis was upset when she saw flowers, greeting cards, and candy become focal points of the holiday"
This should all say something about the general demographic that Alternet targets - younger professional women being a large part of that group, I'm guessing. This is in contrast to sites like Counterpunch, which targets the old stodgy liberal-Marxist types, and Guerrilla News Network, which focuses on the young male MTV generation.
For a far better perspective than Hazen's, I suggest the following:
Mother's Day: Labor's achievements - and promise - cited at tribute to legendary organizer:
Bert Vancauwelaert knows the song well. At the end of the verse, he softly sings the refrain. The lyrics ask a question he answered for himself a long time ago, but it’s one that still bears repeating: “Whose side are you on? Whose side are you on?”
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» please post this comment on the other article about mothers
Posted by: e rice
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cef on May 10, 2008 10:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: cephalis
Posted by: Cathyblj
» horse shit. Men have far higher absenteeism than women.
Posted by: wagadog
» RE: horse shit. Men have far higher absenteeism than women.
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: horse shit. Men have far higher absenteeism than women.
Posted by: joe2171
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on May 10, 2008 11:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: mnatra
» American Priorities Again: America has plenty of 'Christian' Allies around the world
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on May 10, 2008 12:39 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Be careful, maxpayne, knowledge opens pandora's box
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: Be careful, maxpayne, knowledge opens pandora's box
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Be careful, maxpayne, knowledge opens pandora's box
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» i agree
Posted by: e rice
» RE: Mothers and Fathers are both ripped off by the current system.
Posted by: mnatra
Comments are closed-
Posted by: realmuzik on May 10, 2008 1:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: In some small-town/rural areas in the USA, mothers are hired instead of single people
Posted by: e rice
» RE: In some small-town/rural areas in the USA, mothers are hired instead of single people
Posted by: GPFrank
» RE: In some small-town/rural areas in the USA, mothers are hired instead of single people
Posted by: GPFrank
» RE: Frigerator White Hardworking Bassackwardsvilles
Posted by: wagadog
» Spouting your opinion as fact again?
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: carrie bradshaw on May 10, 2008 4:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And when was the last time you exceeded the speed limit?
Posted by: wagadog
» RE: Hmm, really? I don't think so
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» employers' tricks
Posted by: e rice
» RE: Hmm, really? I don't think so
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: profedwards on May 10, 2008 5:25 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Between bitter singles whining about "subsidies" (be more worried about multi-billion dollar subs for oil and corn than my "whopping" tax break for my kid); "activists" claiming that we women (sorry - "breeders") who choose to reproduce are ingnoring our duty to fight for a Constitutional amendment that has failed every year for many decades (Using this logic, natural-born Americans would have died out generations ago); and the rest of the crew who want to justify lower pay for mothers, I am nearly at a loss for words.
So I'll just end with this: To the REAL MOTHERS out there - whether by adoption, birth or chance - HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY. This fellow (educated, professional, flex-time-working) mother hopes that you can rise above the cynicism, ignorance and hate found on this post and ENJOY tomorrow - and every moment you spend with your children.
With understanding and appreciation for the gifts you give to the next generation!
Prof Edwards
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You Kiss your Mother with that Mouth?
Posted by: Moira61
» RE: You Kiss your Mother with that Mouth?
Posted by: photon's feather
» Ad Homs Better than LOGIC for Some...PHOTON FEATHER
Posted by: profedwards
» both of you behave yourselves
Posted by: e rice
» My apologies, e rice!
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: My apologies, e rice!
Posted by: e rice
» A pretty good Mother's Day, professor
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: You Kiss your Mother with that Mouth?
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on May 10, 2008 6:05 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Landbaron?
Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: Landbaron?
Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: Wanna be mothers should.....
Posted by: mnatra
Comments are closed-
Posted by: liberalibrarian on May 11, 2008 8:40 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My motherhood story is no doubt (should I choose to tell it) one of the most unjust, up-against-the system you'd ever hear...and yes because of the interruption in my career I'll probably have to be peeled off the desk (I should live so long) My daughter is a hopeful, smart 22 year old now, and we are just now getting to know each other since her crazy (using the vernacular) father managed to take her away. money + sociopathic cunning = victory.
But don't condemm mothers for a patriarchal worldview that is too slow to change. Working men and women have been screwed by many facets of the same thing: unmitigated capitalism combined with patriarchy.
Call your Mom, quit whining, save your money and eat your vegetables.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» what about
Posted by: e rice
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 11, 2008 12:10 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a little prospective for you on how badly we are failing every Mother and Child in America on this Mother's Day..!
Stiglitz says the war in Iraq will cost as many of you have heard $3 Trillion dollars..
Now I know that already the true cost of this War when you include the somewhat Conservative GAO figures including what it will cost to care for those already severely wounded with what we have pissed away in Iraq the cost already is more than $1.6 Trillion dollars..
So we are well on our way to pissing away the projected $3 Trillion dollars by Professor Stiglitz..
But how much money really is $1 Trillion Dollars..?
Well if you stacked $1,000.00 dollar Bills that's $1,000.00 dollars bills..
That stack would reach..63 Miles High..!
That's $63 Miles of $1,000.00 dollar bills..
So if Stiglitz is right $3 Trillion would be
189 Miles high of stacked $1,000.00 Dollar Bills..!
189 Miles high of $1,000.00 dollar bills..!
That's well into outer space..!
So just think of all we could have done for The Mother's and Children of America with what George Bush and the Republican fascist swine running this country would rather piss away in a cesspool like Iraq..?
Ok Happy Mothers Day..!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dianka on May 11, 2008 12:29 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welfare programs were powerfully effective in holding families together while enabling parents to become gainfully employed (note: before "reform", some 80% of recipients voluntarily quit welfare in under 5 years, by utilizing options made possible via welfare. It was highly successful in every area except propaganda.). As a result of "getting tough" on the utterly powerless, a record number of families have been torn apart, with children funneled into the foster home business, and parents left destitute and without hope.
Fortunately, we Americans are blind to both the poverty and social injustices that exist within our borders. After a quarter century of being told that Americans are poor only if they're lazy deviants who are undeserving of the same legal protections we extend to stray dogs, we accept that. And we celebrate another Mother's Day with a clear conscience.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnatra on May 11, 2008 1:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mothers!
We must honor them for making that choice in this day and age.We can also honor the mothers who are choosing to just have one.
Woman's freedom to choose other paths is inextricably tied in with the current global population and energy crisis. Suppose the number of woman who freely choose to have children becomes only 50% in this next generation/?
How much will that affect the price of oil?
Good article
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CommonDreamer on May 11, 2008 4:41 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole corporate arrangement needs re-arranging. The typical schedule was created when men worked outside of the home and women worked inside of it. Now we have both parents usually - struggling to put in the 40+ hours - and spend time with their families - and do the other 40+ hours a week of housework, lifework and all other problem solving - without any real time off. If you think that two weeks off is generous, we need a re-think on this especially when most of us work. We could all work shorter weeks - it is not necessary to have 40 hour weeks as there are now two people working where once there was only one. This would help take some of the pressure off.
We also must find a way to make it such that women are not bearing all of the blame nor burden for the natural chaos that is a part of child-rearing. We need life friendly corporations first. We probably need federal legislation to do it....if someone were brave enough.
We do need equity in pay which Republicans are fighting like the devil because I guess they don't have any family values after all -but we knew this, as they let corporations dictate how life is going to be led, and that doesn't include any room for being a human being who gets sick, who has regular human problems and so on.
We are the most backward and repressive country of all free nations in our work policies. Our time off is paltry. We also have...for a modern country....a kind of misogynist thinking that is surprising. We've never had a woman president - imagine that in a country supposedly so forward thinking. Yet so many other countries have. We really have alot of work to do to go forward and we need first to re-think corporations and how they can better serve humanity, not just the other way around.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: CommonDreamer
Posted by: arthurford
» RE: CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer
» but save us from margaret thatcher clones
Posted by: e rice
» RE: but save us from margaret thatcher clones
Posted by: CommonDreamer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: elPedro on May 13, 2008 2:58 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're not sure about the potential bread winner in your family, keep your legs from spreading. That too is your responsibility.
A lot of women manufacture babies to avoid ever having to lift a finger and work a day in their lives and if they have to, they get bitter. I see the pattern in the comments.
Why is it money so important for women when looking for a father for their babies? That, would be prostitution, if you ask me. Pink and green. That's what the world revolves around.
No, I don't feel any pity toward working mommies, I see pity that they were stupid enough to have babies in the first place. I repeat, it is your choice and your responsibility. Comprende?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Bull!
Posted by: EJ
Comments are closed-
Posted by: elPedro on May 13, 2008 5:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are ultimately the one responsible for what pops out of them! Some stop taking birth control on purpose to reel in the catch, because of a potential money source.
I really don't see why anyone would be stupid enough to have a baby in this day and age. Can't you see what is going to be happening?
Think about the child instead of yourself and your financial future. What it going to be like for them in even 10 years. What about 15 years? Any thought of them living longer than that would be quite optimistic.
Do you know what the population of the world will be in 20 years if we still exist?
Maybe it's time we start neutering all women who don't have very, very wealthy sugar daddies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pedro
Posted by: Karina
» What an intelligent and educated statement!
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: What an intelligent and educated statement!
Posted by: Karina
» RE: Another Poor Victim (When Adventageous, of Course)
Posted by: elPedro
» RE: Another Poor Victim (When Adventageous, of Course)
Posted by: Karina
» RE: Another Poor Victim (When Adventageous, of Course)
Posted by: EJ
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mountain19 on May 14, 2008 11:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on May 17, 2008 12:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on May 10, 2008 4:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Mother, heal thyself.
Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: And yet . . .
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: elPedro on May 10, 2008 4:22 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I don't have any discourse.
I work in an office where the women get paid more than men in the same job titles and don't have to do any heavy lifting, dirty work, or additional responsibilities of the men workers with the same job description.
Equal pay for equal work. I support that idea. And more pay for men if they have additional (mostly hidden) job responsibilities that the women don't have to do because they might hurt themselves or break a nail.
But what I'd really like to know is why would ANYONE bring a baby into this world of 7 billion with the CERTAIN economic collapse of our fascist rejeeeme (hiccup)and the future of this world in 20 or 30 years. I can't even imagine how it will be in 10 years. (Maybe I read too much Alternet.)
Why don't we think about the children? Maybe it's time to stop manufacturing babies. Maybe feed the 30 percent of the world that are starving first, before our own children have the same fate.
Does anyone realize the cost of raising a child until age 18, before college? And how much worst off we are after 7 years of the rich sucking our blood?
If daddy is still responsible for more than half of the support, he should be getting paid more. Much, much more is expected from men. At one time daddy was expected to provide 100 percent of their (baby and mommy) support. Back in the days of living wages.
I would like to see the details of all these reports that claim that women make so much less than men, as well. In what specific fields are we talking about and where are the actual statistics? I suspect the findings are skewed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wow.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: elPedro
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: elPedro
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: Karina
» RE: Pedro
Posted by: flaca
» RE: Pedro
Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Pedro
Posted by: Cathyblj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: justicenow on May 10, 2008 5:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What makes my circumstance bearable is knowing that they will be fighting the good fight when they grow up. Other moms have helped me enormously and I make it a point to do the same for other single moms. Single mom networking is priceless. Appreciation from outside is really nice too, somebody sees our struggle! Thanks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: appreciation
Posted by: tngreen
» but why?
Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: maybe because she had no idea of what he'd do before they had children?
Posted by: photon's feather
» i agree with most of what you wrote
Posted by: e rice
» Then you might want to know
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Then you might want to know
Posted by: e rice
» the father failed, you moron
Posted by: e rice
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: Moira61
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: Cathyblj
» you're right
Posted by: e rice
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: e rice
» RE: the father failed, you moron
Posted by: photon's feather
» bravo!
Posted by: e rice
» Oh! So the lady is a fellow sufferer...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: It's Called "Pro-Choice, You Moron
Posted by: elPedro
» RE: It's Called "Pro-Choice, You Moron
Posted by: EJ
» RE: appreciation
Posted by: arthurford
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 5:41 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a deep and growing suspicion of the real agenda of many of the left-wing 501(c) nonprofit corporate news sites - Democracy Now, Alternet, CounterPunch, the Nation, Mother Jones, the Guerilla News Network, and a few others - sites which promote themselves as "liberal" or "left wing" but who are ruled and guided by corporate boards and mysteriously secretive foundations.
The mix is indeed the message - and Alternet works hard to spin down stories that might be harmful to the wealthiest sectors of corporate America, and to move the discussion off into "safe" areas, like race, gender, sexual preference, etc - socially acceptable liberalism that doesn't threaten the American system of autocratic, corporate-sponsored political rule.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Joan Blades is also a cofounder of MoveOn.org -
Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Joan Blades is also a cofounder of MoveOn.org -
Posted by: realmuzik
» RE: Joan Blades is also a cofounder of MoveOn.org -
Posted by: asilsfable
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 5:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the present site will let it post.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Compare that to some of the more reputable sites, like PR Watch:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: GPFrank
» RE: Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» It sounds like charismatic leadership and regularization.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: Richard House
» RE: Look to your left. See the Mother Jones advertisement?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 6:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Physician, heal thyself!
Posted by: photon's feather
» very true, but
Posted by: e rice
» certainly very true, but
Posted by: photon's feather
» missed it
Posted by: e rice
» RE: missed it - No, got it
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 6:28 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the bogus claims about weapons of mass destruction? Those were never investigated, and no long-term series of stories was ever published by the left-wing press, or any other American press outlet.
What about the stolen 2000 election? What about the fraudulent and rigged electronic voting systems? Why has that all been forgotten by the lefty press?
What about domestic spying and the illegal use of government agents to track and infiltrate anti-war and anti-globalization groups, even extending to the use of government agent provocateurs dressed as protestors?
What about the bogus 911 Truth Movement, that got sooo much coverage here at Alternet and Democracy Now? - and yet Alternet never ran a single story pointing to the fact that 911 Truth is mostly made up of government agent provocateur and PR types, who use the typical "I'm a nut, and so are all my acquaintances" approach to smearing antiwar activists.
I don't see a daily list of the impeachable crimes of GW Bush here at Alternet.
There's not even any footage of the Iraq war.
This site, my friends, along with much of the rest of the left-wing and right-wing activist press, is in my opinion a fraud. In the late 1990s (and even before) there was an effort made by private foundations to set up a large number of internet web and radio "alternative news sites" that would appear to be liberal, but whose real purpose was to help shape public opinion and keep the public under control.
This is really apparent when you look at the stories that the alternative press refuses to cover - the fall 2001 anthrax attacks, the rise of the public-private government-industry combines linked to nuclear and biological warfare activities (Democracy Now has never even mentioned Battelle Memorial Institute), the larger foreign trade agenda of the United States - oh, it gets covered, but the coverage is similar to that of the New York Times or the Washiington Post - a story gets buried on the back page.
In reality, a story is "covered" when a reporter or team of reporters writes a long series of stories that come out every month for a year or more, and which can then be repackaged in book form.
That's what traditional journalism was really all about - and the problem today is not that people don't care enough to read such exposes, but that the corporate press - left, center, and right - doesn't want to do such investigative work.
Now, wake up and rub those cobwebs out of your eyes. . .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thanks, 'professor'
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Thanks, 'professor'
Posted by: tngreen
» RE: Thanks, 'professor'
Posted by: photon's feather
» I've always said that my posts are all about media propaganda, first and foremost.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Thanks, 'professor'
Posted by: joe2171
» Wow. I never considered that before, but ...
Posted by: terradea42
» thanks for the laugh, terradea42!
Posted by: Smackback
» RE: A few thoughts on Alternet and the corporate propaganda system:
Posted by: Lector
» You can always identify a wingnut troll by his Soros fixation
Posted by: Smackback
» RE: You can always identify a wingnut troll by his Soros fixation
Posted by: Lector
» Whose ya daddy? Richard Mellon Scaife or George Soros?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on May 10, 2008 6:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet, the "Left" is assumed to favor women's rights even though we hear no demands for every woman's right to decide if and when to birth a child, or criticism of her macho husband demanding she spend her life pregnant in the kitchen. That's because corporations need all the cheap labor they can get and exploding masses of poor people flooding across borders provides plenty, with silent Left wing consent.
But if women were indeed given the legally protected right to decide if and when to birth their children, only a few would choose 5, 6, or 7, a few would choose none at all, but the vast majority would consent to birth no more than 1, 2 or 3 - and thus the global population would decline and stabilize to live in balance with the Earth's ability to feed us, and there would also be plenty of other resources for a smaller and wiser population.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good point - and there is, as usual, a connection to 1930s era ideology here:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Fascinating history. Today it is...
Posted by: Last Chance
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 10, 2008 7:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» women as breadwinners
Posted by: e rice
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: notthatsimple
» so, make the children suffer?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: well...
Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: Moira61
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: writer7
» RE: i see how it works
Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: 75 cents on a dollar
Posted by: EJ
» RE: CALL YOUR MOTHER!
Posted by: mountain19
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luzmejor on May 10, 2008 7:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish everyone would stop fighting each other and realize that we are all being played, for fun and profit, by professional politicians.
What ordinary citizens want is a chance to live without everyone else butting into their private lives.
Would anyone care to estimate the chances of that, in this era of megachurch sex businesses masquerading as promoters of "Christian" beliefs?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» absolutely right
Posted by: e rice
» beyond politics -
Posted by: Last Chance
» ever read any history?
Posted by: e rice
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stanlca on May 10, 2008 7:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do some mothers earn less than other equally qualified workers in similar or same positions because they actually work and accomplish less?
Yes.
I'm an HR manager and I see this all the time. The women who come in late, go home early and/or call in frequently because of their family/children's needs. Make no mistake, just because they aren't there doesn't mean their work isn't. Someone is doing it and it's usually their co-workers who are also earning more and getting promoted sooner.
I'm all for a flexible work enviornment, but you simply must do the work expected of you. If you are focusing on other obligations, you are not focused on work.
I could go on about the differences between how different mother's (married, divorced and single) approach the work environment, but I have work to do!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: America falling behind
Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: so why aren't you demanding company day care for these women?
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: some moms may need to earn less
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» I think you as an HR ?manager? should be fired..
Posted by: Turiye
» RE: I think you as an HR ?manager? should be fired..
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: some moms may need to earn less
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thinkverybig on May 10, 2008 8:14 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coming soon is www.wemustchange.org
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: writer7
» Ridiculous!
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Coming soon! WeMustChange.org
Posted by: joe2171
Comments are closed-
Posted by: e rice on May 10, 2008 8:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there are about 15 other countries with lower rates of infant mortality.
twenty years ago, america ranked 13th and 11th in the world.
only three countries in the world do not provide government mandated maternal leave--austratlia provides a year's unpaid maternal leave. only papua-new guinea and america do not have government mandated maternal leave. a few european nations provide for paternal leave.
research day care for yourselves.
a recent study reported that, while some men do a bit more housework than 30 years ago, not much has changed in the amount of housework men do today, even with more women working full time.
about 20 years ago, i read about a study that reported tht 75% of divorced men do not pay court-mandated child support--this isn't alimony, it's child support. the same study reported that 50% of divorced men never see their children again. for some reason, i doubt the current statistics would be much better. although the federal government passed a law that garnished deadbeat dads' wages, because so many women ended up on welfare without child support, one alternet reader says the current federal backlog of deadbeat dad cases 'would choke a goat.'
acording to one study, thanks to the religious right's successful war against birth control clinics, 80% of rural counties do not have birth control clinics.
viagra was covered by insurance companies the day it hit the market. the insurance companies will not cover birth control pills, not even for women with endometriosis.
and what do the men in this country do to improve the situation? to protect their wives, sisters, and daughters?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: how america treats mothers
Posted by: Dianka
Comments are closed-
Posted by: photon's feather on May 10, 2008 8:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've known and seen it first-hand. Oh, get so-and-so to work the holiday/later the day before a holiday/come in on the holiday, etc.: (s)he doesn't have to prepare a meal/doesn't have a family to worry about/doesn't have family out of town, etc. Or, Let so-and-so work the later hours (or overtime): (s)he doesn't have kids to pick up after school, from daycare, etc. That doesn't mean that so-and-so doesn't have a peraonal life and/or wouldn't appreciate being able to conduct personal business at a reasonable hour. Emergencies are worse, as of course there's no being able to anticipate them.
In very small companies (or departments), there's always someone who is burdened with the inconvenience - and it's ususally the same person (or few people).
Some of this also applies to mothers that are not single, as well as to fathers that accept responsibility for a large part of child care.
Do any of these parents ever stop to think that perhaps so-and-so has distant family or very close friends that (s)he would like to invite to dinner or go, (perhaps out of town), to visit? Or that perhaps because so-and-so works the same job, (s)he has earned the same right to a holiday - however (s)he defines it?
It's surprising how many of us choose not to have children, only to discover that those who chose otherwise expect us to share the inconvenience - and here I am not talking about real emergencies. Why? (Working childless couples don't subsidize single childless people's rent, even though it's just as high: a single person needs as many rooms as a couple - plus as much heat, and nearly as much furniture, electricity, etc.)
Personally, I make a distinction between single mothers that never bothered to worry about how they were going to raise their child(ren) without a father, and single mothers who honestly believed that their child(ren)would have a responsible father, i.e., were later widowed or divorced or abandoned. The former were irresponsible; the latter were unfortunate. (Those single mothers who were victims of force also belong in the latter group.)
If a woman's boyfriend is irresponsible or abusive, what makes her think a baby is going to change him? Or that marriage is going to change him, for that matter?
Yes, I know that irresponsible fathers are a problem, and I know that it is unfair that women are saddled with the greater share of the burdensome aspects of parenthood. That is, however, a well-known fact of life. Any woman who doesn't keep it in mind is a fool.
We know what causes children, and it is usually possible to avoid them. There aren't any little ones running around with my genes. That's by choice. If I were a woman, I would certainly be at least as careful. (Sometimes it means 'going without.' Too bad. I guarantee nobody will die of deprivation.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» ahem
Posted by: e rice
» RE: ahem
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: ahem
Posted by: e rice
» RE: ahem
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: ahem
Posted by: photon's feather
» You're right about everything you wrote, but the problem is you're arguing with victimization.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
Comments are closed-
Posted by: euphobot on May 10, 2008 8:44 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hazen would serve the future better if he wern't stumped by this gatekeeper.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» what, and whose, flaming statistics?
Posted by: e rice
» RE: Do it for the kids
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terradea42 on May 10, 2008 9:00 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for protecting mothers in the workplace; this is no time to be having babies. Food shortages, energy shortages, war, global warming ... the world you live in needs your time and effort, not your children. Stop breeding and start fighting for freedom, justice and liberty.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Motherhood is Seriously Overrated
Posted by: Karina
» RE: Motherhood is Seriously Overrated
Posted by: elPedro
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flaca on May 10, 2008 9:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: flaca
Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: flaca
Posted by: joe2171
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on May 10, 2008 9:20 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mention sources or other articles emphasizing
contrary views.
Mother Jones should state in front of articles, especially controversial ones whether they endorse the particular point of view or state generally that the publishing of and does not necessarily constitute endorsement. The articles such as the one on recycling nuclear fuel and the one on oil contain truth and arguments worth thinking about. For instance
the total carbon emission from the whole nuclear cycle is about 1/3 of that per watt produced by fossil fuel. They are making a positive step. On the other hand every advocate of some kind of energy should always include the reminder that the first priority is conserving rather than running amuck.
The recent brouhaha about Obama's former minister gives rise to the point about being too negative; that the threnody about the rulers having so much power and ability to oppress leaves people in the slough of despondency and dependency rather than encouraging them to act.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: e rice on May 10, 2008 9:51 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's take Mother's Day, originally started by a woman who worked hard to raise living conditions in the West Virginia coal country, where union members were routinely murdered:
"Ann Reeves Jarvis worked to bring the mothers together and to mothers work groups to help improve sanitary conditions in the community and to reduce infant mortality in the area. Her daughter Anna Jarvis declared when she died that she would create a day to honor all mothers in an effort to honor her own mother. So she came back here in 1907 to hold a memorial service for her mother, and then in 1908 they had the first Mother’s Day service."
So, what is Don Hazen doing here? Why, what he always does - he tries to recast this as a gender issue, not as a basic human rights issue - when the latter is what inspired the actual founder, who, we learn:
"Anna Jarvis wanted mother’s day to be simple but meaningful. She wanted sons and daughters to write letters to their mothers—not to sign their name at the bottom of a greeting card. She wanted mothers to rest on this holiday. So, Jarvis was upset when she saw flowers, greeting cards, and candy become focal points of the holiday"
This should all say something about the general demographic that Alternet targets - younger professional women being a large part of that group, I'm guessing. This is in contrast to sites like Counterpunch, which targets the old stodgy liberal-Marxist types, and Guerrilla News Network, which focuses on the young male MTV generation.
For a far better perspective than Hazen's, I suggest the following:
Mother's Day: Labor's achievements - and promise - cited at tribute to legendary organizer:
Bert Vancauwelaert knows the song well. At the end of the verse, he softly sings the refrain. The lyrics ask a question he answered for himself a long time ago, but it’s one that still bears repeating: “Whose side are you on? Whose side are you on?”
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» please post this comment on the other article about mothers
Posted by: e rice
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cef on May 10, 2008 10:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: cephalis
Posted by: Cathyblj
» horse shit. Men have far higher absenteeism than women.
Posted by: wagadog
» RE: horse shit. Men have far higher absenteeism than women.
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: horse shit. Men have far higher absenteeism than women.
Posted by: joe2171
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on May 10, 2008 11:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: American Priorities Again: Everything for War and The Military, Nothing for the People!
Posted by: mnatra
» American Priorities Again: America has plenty of 'Christian' Allies around the world
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on May 10, 2008 12:39 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Be careful, maxpayne, knowledge opens pandora's box
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: Be careful, maxpayne, knowledge opens pandora's box
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Be careful, maxpayne, knowledge opens pandora's box
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» i agree
Posted by: e rice
» RE: Mothers and Fathers are both ripped off by the current system.
Posted by: mnatra
Comments are closed-
Posted by: realmuzik on May 10, 2008 1:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: In some small-town/rural areas in the USA, mothers are hired instead of single people
Posted by: e rice
» RE: In some small-town/rural areas in the USA, mothers are hired instead of single people
Posted by: GPFrank
» RE: In some small-town/rural areas in the USA, mothers are hired instead of single people
Posted by: GPFrank
» RE: Frigerator White Hardworking Bassackwardsvilles
Posted by: wagadog
» Spouting your opinion as fact again?
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: carrie bradshaw on May 10, 2008 4:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And when was the last time you exceeded the speed limit?
Posted by: wagadog
» RE: Hmm, really? I don't think so
Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» employers' tricks
Posted by: e rice
» RE: Hmm, really? I don't think so
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: profedwards on May 10, 2008 5:25 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Between bitter singles whining about "subsidies" (be more worried about multi-billion dollar subs for oil and corn than my "whopping" tax break for my kid); "activists" claiming that we women (sorry - "breeders") who choose to reproduce are ingnoring our duty to fight for a Constitutional amendment that has failed every year for many decades (Using this logic, natural-born Americans would have died out generations ago); and the rest of the crew who want to justify lower pay for mothers, I am nearly at a loss for words.
So I'll just end with this: To the REAL MOTHERS out there - whether by adoption, birth or chance - HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY. This fellow (educated, professional, flex-time-working) mother hopes that you can rise above the cynicism, ignorance and hate found on this post and ENJOY tomorrow - and every moment you spend with your children.
With understanding and appreciation for the gifts you give to the next generation!
Prof Edwards
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You Kiss your Mother with that Mouth?
Posted by: Moira61
» RE: You Kiss your Mother with that Mouth?
Posted by: photon's feather
» Ad Homs Better than LOGIC for Some...PHOTON FEATHER
Posted by: profedwards
» both of you behave yourselves
Posted by: e rice
» My apologies, e rice!
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: My apologies, e rice!
Posted by: e rice
» A pretty good Mother's Day, professor
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: You Kiss your Mother with that Mouth?
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on May 10, 2008 6:05 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Landbaron?
Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: Landbaron?
Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: Wanna be mothers should.....
Posted by: mnatra
Comments are closed-
Posted by: liberalibrarian on May 11, 2008 8:40 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My motherhood story is no doubt (should I choose to tell it) one of the most unjust, up-against-the system you'd ever hear...and yes because of the interruption in my career I'll probably have to be peeled off the desk (I should live so long) My daughter is a hopeful, smart 22 year old now, and we are just now getting to know each other since her crazy (using the vernacular) father managed to take her away. money + sociopathic cunning = victory.
But don't condemm mothers for a patriarchal worldview that is too slow to change. Working men and women have been screwed by many facets of the same thing: unmitigated capitalism combined with patriarchy.
Call your Mom, quit whining, save your money and eat your vegetables.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» what about
Posted by: e rice
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 11, 2008 12:10 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a little prospective for you on how badly we are failing every Mother and Child in America on this Mother's Day..!
Stiglitz says the war in Iraq will cost as many of you have heard $3 Trillion dollars..
Now I know that already the true cost of this War when you include the somewhat Conservative GAO figures including what it will cost to care for those already severely wounded with what we have pissed away in Iraq the cost already is more than $1.6 Trillion dollars..
So we are well on our way to pissing away the projected $3 Trillion dollars by Professor Stiglitz..
But how much money really is $1 Trillion Dollars..?
Well if you stacked $1,000.00 dollar Bills that's $1,000.00 dollars bills..
That stack would reach..63 Miles High..!
That's $63 Miles of $1,000.00 dollar bills..
So if Stiglitz is right $3 Trillion would be
189 Miles high of stacked $1,000.00 Dollar Bills..!
189 Miles high of $1,000.00 dollar bills..!
That's well into outer space..!
So just think of all we could have done for The Mother's and Children of America with what George Bush and the Republican fascist swine running this country would rather piss away in a cesspool like Iraq..?
Ok Happy Mothers Day..!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dianka on May 11, 2008 12:29 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welfare programs were powerfully effective in holding families together while enabling parents to become gainfully employed (note: before "reform", some 80% of recipients voluntarily quit welfare in under 5 years, by utilizing options made possible via welfare. It was highly successful in every area except propaganda.). As a result of "getting tough" on the utterly powerless, a record number of families have been torn apart, with children funneled into the foster home business, and parents left destitute and without hope.
Fortunately, we Americans are blind to both the poverty and social injustices that exist within our borders. After a quarter century of being told that Americans are poor only if they're lazy deviants who are undeserving of the same legal protections we extend to stray dogs, we accept that. And we celebrate another Mother's Day with a clear conscience.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnatra on May 11, 2008 1:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mothers!
We must honor them for making that choice in this day and age.We can also honor the mothers who are choosing to just have one.
Woman's freedom to choose other paths is inextricably tied in with the current global population and energy crisis. Suppose the number of woman who freely choose to have children becomes only 50% in this next generation/?
How much will that affect the price of oil?
Good article
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CommonDreamer on May 11, 2008 4:41 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole corporate arrangement needs re-arranging. The typical schedule was created when men worked outside of the home and women worked inside of it. Now we have both parents usually - struggling to put in the 40+ hours - and spend time with their families - and do the other 40+ hours a week of housework, lifework and all other problem solving - without any real time off. If you think that two weeks off is generous, we need a re-think on this especially when most of us work. We could all work shorter weeks - it is not necessary to have 40 hour weeks as there are now two people working where once there was only one. This would help take some of the pressure off.
We also must find a way to make it such that women are not bearing all of the blame nor burden for the natural chaos that is a part of child-rearing. We need life friendly corporations first. We probably need federal legislation to do it....if someone were brave enough.
We do need equity in pay which Republicans are fighting like the devil because I guess they don't have any family values after all -but we knew this, as they let corporations dictate how life is going to be led, and that doesn't include any room for being a human being who gets sick, who has regular human problems and so on.
We are the most backward and repressive country of all free nations in our work policies. Our time off is paltry. We also have...for a modern country....a kind of misogynist thinking that is surprising. We've never had a woman president - imagine that in a country supposedly so forward thinking. Yet so many other countries have. We really have alot of work to do to go forward and we need first to re-think corporations and how they can better serve humanity, not just the other way around.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: CommonDreamer
Posted by: arthurford
» RE: CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer
» but save us from margaret thatcher clones
Posted by: e rice
» RE: but save us from margaret thatcher clones
Posted by: CommonDreamer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: elPedro on May 13, 2008 2:58 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're not sure about the potential bread winner in your family, keep your legs from spreading. That too is your responsibility.
A lot of women manufacture babies to avoid ever having to lift a finger and work a day in their lives and if they have to, they get bitter. I see the pattern in the comments.
Why is it money so important for women when looking for a father for their babies? That, would be prostitution, if you ask me. Pink and green. That's what the world revolves around.
No, I don't feel any pity toward working mommies, I see pity that they were stupid enough to have babies in the first place. I repeat, it is your choice and your responsibility. Comprende?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Bull!
Posted by: EJ
Comments are closed-
Posted by: elPedro on May 13, 2008 5:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are ultimately the one responsible for what pops out of them! Some stop taking birth control on purpose to reel in the catch, because of a potential money source.
I really don't see why anyone would be stupid enough to have a baby in this day and age. Can't you see what is going to be happening?
Think about the child instead of yourself and your financial future. What it going to be like for them in even 10 years. What about 15 years? Any thought of them living longer than that would be quite optimistic.
Do you know what the population of the world will be in 20 years if we still exist?
Maybe it's time we start neutering all women who don't have very, very wealthy sugar daddies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pedro
Posted by: Karina
» What an intelligent and educated statement!
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: What an intelligent and educated statement!
Posted by: Karina
» RE: Another Poor Victim (When Adventageous, of Course)
Posted by: elPedro
» RE: Another Poor Victim (When Adventageous, of Course)
Posted by: Karina
» RE: Another Poor Victim (When Adventageous, of Course)
Posted by: EJ
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mountain19 on May 14, 2008 11:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on May 17, 2008 12:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign
Why Congress Wants You to Shun Your Local Bookstore and Shop at Amazon Instead




