HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » WhaTHellsgoingonhere » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
Number of posts: 3,377

Journal Archives


I like that Scuba. Gonna use it
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Nov 30, 2014, 05:44 PM (0 replies)

I LIKE this topic a lot!!!!

Two come to mind

I. Freedom of Assembly, I feel like I've given it up to some extent

Hear me out. I have participated in protests here in Chicago, most recently with HCAN, with SEIU, with teacher unions, against NATO, against the banksters, against corporate tax dodgers. Have posted several pictures here. The NATO demonstration was exceptional, so I'll just talk about the others.

For each of the others, I was (1) unemployed, and (2) the demonstrations, with one exception, didn't inconvenience anyone. That exception being a march right into Wells Fargo bank in downtown Chicago and filling it up to it's gills with demonstrators holding signs. That was pretty cool But aside from that, we were invisible. The police told us where to march and we stayed out of everyone's way.

So what makes me feel like I've given up my right to assemble? Employment. I'm afraid of missing work. I'm afraid of getting arrested. For the most part, I've believed the demonstrations are too regulated to be effective. I just makes me feel like we've given up too much.

II. Right to Privacy

I want to use the phone, computer, credit cards, social media, etc.. I pretty much willfully and knowingly signed my life away. I assume using DU means we've all knowingly given up our privacy whether we like it or not.

Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Nov 30, 2014, 05:36 PM (1 replies)

Sexism, intellectual laziness, giddy gah gah, and sweetheart

Many responses to my "Women are Sexist Pigs" thread from the other night fall under intellectual laziness. It's pretty clear that I understand the historical context, loyalsister. That you missed it is just lazy. People came to that thread with pre-fab responses. Minds already made up and loaded for bear.

So many of the intellectually lazy, loyalsister, got stuck on, "giddy gah gah" and "swooning". None of you cared about what one of the women said about the way they behaved, i.e., the gah gah.

I left soon after and almost immediately received a text from D who said she was sorry she made me feel uncomfortable and it was totally hypocritical of her and she won't do it again. She went on and said I was totally right, if it was reversed (5 men talking about a hot female coworker), each one of them would be freaking out.

So, based on her words, it was a big deal from the point of view of a woman.

Not a hostile environment. I couldn't wait for them to slip up! We are a tight group. They love me and I them. But because of the historical context, I have to be careful, moreso than them. You should have noticed, loyalsister. Lazy...

re: sweetheart
I was explaining this when I got locked out of the thread so it never got posted. "Sweetheart" is kind of a big deal in my field. The women work with older men who call them "Sweetheart" and "Sweetie". My coworkers are to correct them each time, saying something like, "My name is Kathleen, please address me by my name."

Other words on the no-no list:

Crazy: I can't believe that. That's totally crazy. (FAIL)
Nuts: You cannot be serious. That guy drives me nuts! (FAIL)

Sweetheart isn't really part of my vernacular, but I've been saying "crazy" and "nuts" for longer than they've been alive.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Tue Nov 25, 2014, 08:50 PM (15 replies)

Ooops! Turns out women are (sexist) pigs, too. And they're completely blind to it.

I'm a 48 y/o straight, single man and currently employed as a social worker, a heavily female dominated field. The team I work on consists of 5 women between age 21 and 33, and myself. I was recently at a department party and out of about 20-25 people, 4 were men.

Being an old guy, I believe demographics matter, and to the point of this thread, gender. I can only speculate - youth and inexperience? idealism? post-sexist generation? - I've been lectured by the 20 y/o's about how it's wrong to reinforce gender role concepts such as one I had put forth: "Hey, you know, I need to talk to him about this. It's different coming from a man." The response to that was, in so many words, "It shouldn't be different and you shouldn't reinforce this."

So I've been doing my best to respect their point of view and have done a very good job. Once, I said something I didn't realize was sexist, but they helped me understand why it was. I thanked them for helping me understand. Then Thursday, in an attempt to boost my coworker's morale (we all rallied around her) after a bad experience with a client, I texted (we are community outreach and work independently) something regrettable: "That's bullshit, C, we all know you're a sweetheart."

Sweatheart, I texted, YIKES!

Everyone let it go, but after about 5 minutes passed, I realized what I had done and was mortified. I texted an apology to everyone at that point, stating I can do better. I then apologized to her face-to-face when we got back to the office.

So that covers me, but this thread isn't about me. It's about women, they're sexist pigs, they don't know it, in fact they're blind to it, and when you point it out, meh...they really don't care.

So long, long ago, before the lecture I mentioned above about gender roles and whatnot, on about 3 occasions, the staff meeting got derailed by a conversation about different, very hot male staff in other offices. Each time it happened, I chuckled inside. Finally, after the 3rd occasion, I turned to the woman next to me and whispered, "You guys get away with a lot!" She replied, "Like what?" I returned, "When it happens, I'll nudge you."

Every single one of them was in on it, the team supervisor, nurse (6th woman), and young post-sexist generation women, alike. There's two really, sexist pig aspects to this, one I'll address later. For now, I want to inform you just how "bad" (i.e., pig like) all of these women are. Every single one of them lives with their husband, fiance, or long-time boyfriend. All of them! I'm trying to come up with a scenario in which married (or other) women would not have that visceral "My husband/boyfriend is always looking at other women and it hurts me!" reaction. I cannot.

Those staff meetings occurred literally months ago. Fast forward to Friday, the very day after my regrettable "sweetheart" text.

So Friday rolls along and one of them cracked out of turn, then the dam broke. Unbeknownst to me, one of the women had a private meeting with the team heartthrob. On the group text in which I was included, there was a barrage of giddy gah gah over him and his interaction with one of the post-sexist generation women (D, the lecturer). The supervisor was deep in the muck, too.


So I butted in with this text:

"Oh boy, glad I'm the only male on the team and not one of 5 men talking about a hot female coworker in front of the lone woman on the team."

Oh, they carried on as if I wasn't even there. In fact, only one woman, C (the sweetheart from the previous day) replied directly to me immediately: "It's nice that we can objectify men just the same!"

An hour or two later, I got back to the office and walked right back into the middle of this ongoing swooning. D, the 21 y/o post-sexist generation lecturer was right in it but blushing because she knew she got caught. She also noticed I was taken aback. She scrambled and said, "We love you, M".

I left soon after and almost immediately received a text from D who said she was sorry she made me feel uncomfortable and it was totally hypocritical of her and she won't do it again. She went on and said I was totally right, if it was reversed (5 men talking about a hot female coworker), each one of them would be freaking out.

Since it happened 3 times months ago, and continued after I sent out my "Gotcha!" text, I'm not going to give D the benefit of the doubt in that she had any intention of apologizing to me. The apology came only after she saw my stunned face and WTF expression.

Ladies, don't you hate it when that happens?
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:52 PM (45 replies)

Yeah, but if we were paying attention from the start...

we would have had every reason to believe he'd adopt these positions. Many here knew all that because they were paying close attention during the debates and stuff.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Aug 31, 2014, 11:51 PM (1 replies)

Funny how when men advocate for themselves...

a whole different narrative emerges than when women usurp the topic of male contraception from a male's point of view.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Jul 27, 2014, 03:06 PM (1 replies)

l just invented the marketing plan for male contraception

An erection-contreception pill that promises to make your penis bigger. The promise is the hook. Seems men will buy anything that merely promises to make their penis bigger.

TM (c) all rights reserved by WTH
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sun Jul 27, 2014, 12:18 PM (19 replies)

So a different Democrat would have been more effective...

Obama gets a free pass from many here because people misrepresent the facts and say Congress blocks everything. There's also this notion that, with respect to the things he has delivered (which we know can't be much because of obstruction) they wouldn't have been championed by any Democrat. He's just a Democrat who moves to the right to comprmise, but otherwise can't get much done.

Nothing special.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Jul 19, 2014, 03:00 PM (0 replies)

To the DUers who constantly bemoan: what happened to DU?

What you're seeing here is playing out as follows:

On one side are the passive voice populists, which include both Clintons and Obama. They argue that our Gilded Age inequality is the product of technology and globalization, as if these were autonomous forces like the weather. The effects — a declining middle class, stagnant wages, spreading misery — can be ameliorated by sensible policies, like the agenda Sargent ticks off. Most of all, Americans need to make certain the next generation gets better education and training so they can better compete in the global marketplace. Universal preschool is a first step to that. But the largest thrust — driven by the party’s deep pocket donors — is an assault on teacher’s unions and public schools, investment in charters, public and private, and a focus on high-stakes testing to measure teacher and school performance.

Undergirding this is an acceptance that we can’t really afford to do even the minimum in public education or child poverty, so the focus has to be on cheaper ways to make progress. This assumption also fuels the interest in cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, experimenting with public-private partnerships to raise funds, and so on. All this assumes that we’re close to the limits on taxes, that corporate tax reform should be “revenue neutral,” (that is, companies should not contribute one dime more to our investment or budget needs), and that taxes on the wealthy can’t produce much additional revenue.

The activist-voice populists disagree fundamentally with both the analysis and the prescription.
They argue that extreme inequality results from rules that were rigged to benefit the few and not the many. That leads to the demand for structural reforms to change the rules: fair and balanced trade and tax policies to replace those created by and for the multinationals; breaking up big banks and curbing Wall Street’s casino as opposed to accepting banks that are too big to fail and too big to save; progressive tax reforms to create revenue for the public investments that we need in everything from education to infrastructure to an expanded safety net; empowering workers and curbing CEO license to ensure workers share in the profits they help to produce; expanding Social Security and public pensions while moving further towards true universal, affordable health care.

These differences are only now emerging, as the failure of the recovery forces a bigger debate about our economy.

The Wall Street wing presses forward with corporate trade deals that are opposed by a growing majority of voters. The bankers bear no accountability for their pervasive frauds and lawlessness, while most Americans are looking for perp walks. Well-heeled lobbies block any sensible tax reform, while polls show Americans strongly want the rich and the corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Obama has already felt the revolt of the Democratic base against his plans to pare Social Security benefits. Clinton and Obama have been essentially AWOL in the war on labor and collective bargaining, essential elements of any strategy to rebuild the middle class.


Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Thu Jul 10, 2014, 11:31 PM (16 replies)

Economic sanctions...

Cut his water, electricity, etc... until he pays his bills. No confrontation.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 26, 2014, 02:19 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »