So I've finally taken the time to invite some more opinions. I figure that we are all women with strong opinions, we won't necessarily agree, is this starting to sound like The View???
Ok so I'm not Barbara Walters....
Anything you want to rant about is fine....go for it.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Arizona's new law to arrest/detain those who "look" like an illegal immigrant
Arizona's new law allowing police officers to stop those who look like illegal immigrants is laughable. What exactly does an illegal immigrant look like and how does that person's looks, language, and demeanor differ from a legal immigrant?
What are we so afraid of that we have to waste time with stupid laws? This is a law clearly directed at brown people as since as Robert Jensen argues "America is a white country"Jensen article. Are we afraid that someone is going to take away our country like we took away theirs?
The absolute irony is that all of our border states were once part of Mexico before we purchased (wheeled and dealt) them. So families had been living in those places for centuries and after the purchase, an arbitrary line was drawn to separate them into two countries with different rules, laws, and requirements. Yet the cultures that existed had been the same for years. Just because white Americans see a line that separates two countries at that border doesn't mean that the native people who live there see the same border. Yes, you could argue that that border has now been there for at least 100 years, but if white Americans are any indication, you could also argue it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Just for once, I'd like someone to look at a situation from a perspective other than his/her own narrow one. To me the bottom line is this--the new law just legalizes racial profiling.
What are we so afraid of that we have to waste time with stupid laws? This is a law clearly directed at brown people as since as Robert Jensen argues "America is a white country"Jensen article. Are we afraid that someone is going to take away our country like we took away theirs?
The absolute irony is that all of our border states were once part of Mexico before we purchased (wheeled and dealt) them. So families had been living in those places for centuries and after the purchase, an arbitrary line was drawn to separate them into two countries with different rules, laws, and requirements. Yet the cultures that existed had been the same for years. Just because white Americans see a line that separates two countries at that border doesn't mean that the native people who live there see the same border. Yes, you could argue that that border has now been there for at least 100 years, but if white Americans are any indication, you could also argue it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Just for once, I'd like someone to look at a situation from a perspective other than his/her own narrow one. To me the bottom line is this--the new law just legalizes racial profiling.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Is it really ok to disrespect the President
Driving down to work the other day, I saw a bumper sticker that called President Obama an "error" that needed to be corrected--or something to that effect. I started to think about all of the extreme language that is used about him and how upset people (often republicans) get about anything he does or says. I started to think about how I conducted myself when Bush was in office. I was struck that I had said some bad things about him, but as I thought about it further, it wasn't really because he was a republican. Bush didn't in any way command respect--he in many ways brought on ridicule by not thinking before he spoke. I'm sure I never said the disrespectful kinds of things that I said about him about his father or president Regan. Regan afterall was an excellent speaker and very charismatic--someone who commanded the respect of the people. Someone, not unlike Barack Obama--intelligent, well-versed, a listener.
Then this morning on Facebook, one friend had joined a group "petitioning to remove a group from facebook who was praying for the president's death." Did I read that right?? Would someone really wish someone dead? I don't think I even thought of that one about Bush. Maybe I assumed we might all be dead for some of the stupid moves he made with regard to foreign policy and the rest of the world, but wish him dead???
I don't know who is perpetuating these attitudes and extreme disrespect, but I find it irritating, especially when a president is trying hard to do what's best for the majority of people and he is extremely educated and well-spoken. He is deserving of respect, no matter how we view his politics, no matter if we agree or disagree with him.
This leads me to wonder if these aren't just white supremist attitudes bleeding through--is it that we can't believe a person is capable of leading our country or meeting our needs unless he looks like us? Does he "deserve" disrespect simply because he is part African-American, regardless of his other outstanding credentials? After all, he loves his wife and children, allows gardens to be planted at the white house, feels that U.S. should be cooperating with other countries for a better world. But, because he is not taking a colonizing attitude, we are somehow unable to trust and respect him?
These tea partiers are not working for radical change--they are simple holding on tight to the status quo!
Then this morning on Facebook, one friend had joined a group "petitioning to remove a group from facebook who was praying for the president's death." Did I read that right?? Would someone really wish someone dead? I don't think I even thought of that one about Bush. Maybe I assumed we might all be dead for some of the stupid moves he made with regard to foreign policy and the rest of the world, but wish him dead???
I don't know who is perpetuating these attitudes and extreme disrespect, but I find it irritating, especially when a president is trying hard to do what's best for the majority of people and he is extremely educated and well-spoken. He is deserving of respect, no matter how we view his politics, no matter if we agree or disagree with him.
This leads me to wonder if these aren't just white supremist attitudes bleeding through--is it that we can't believe a person is capable of leading our country or meeting our needs unless he looks like us? Does he "deserve" disrespect simply because he is part African-American, regardless of his other outstanding credentials? After all, he loves his wife and children, allows gardens to be planted at the white house, feels that U.S. should be cooperating with other countries for a better world. But, because he is not taking a colonizing attitude, we are somehow unable to trust and respect him?
These tea partiers are not working for radical change--they are simple holding on tight to the status quo!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Mothers' work
A friend's blog post "Post Feminist Musing" http://chretienfamilyblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/post-feminist-musings.html got me thinking on the topic of mothers, their work--paid and unpaid, and the way we still find no value in the kinds of work that sustain life--what by some is considered unproductive labor since it does nothing to further material wealth.
Here is an overview from Wikipedia (not the best resource but an ok place to start):
The classical political economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo raised the economic question of which kinds of labour contributed to increasing society's wealth, as against activities which do not produce a vendible commodity which can be resold at a profit. They regarded human labour as the mainspring of wealth, and therefore they regarded the economical use of labour as highly important.
Within an enterprise, for example, there were many tasks which had to be performed, such as cleaning, record and bookkeeping or repairs, which did not directly contribute to producing and increasing wealth in the sense of making a net addition to it - in other words, such tasks represented a net cost to the enterprise which had to be minimized.
From this 18th/19th century spouting about an industrial economny, we can begin to understand how it is that "women's work" was denigraded and classified as less important. The work that was less important wasn't even necessarily women's work, but it seems that as that work was classified as less important, men gravitated to the important and left the women with the place "they deserved" and the work that they "deserved". I'm quoting because I think these attitudes are old fashioned and I don't believe that we have the same attitudes toward women today, yet we do have these same attitudes towards that type of work--no matter who is performing it.
If we truly looked at the human costs of not doing this work--then the work of raising children, keeping house, home cooking high quality food, record/bookkeeping becomes much more valuable. If these things didn't get done, how would any of the people doing the "productive" work accomplish anything? How would we even have anyone who was willing and able to do the "productive" work if mothers/fathers and teachers weren't raising thinking, caring human beings?
My suspicion is that if the Smith and other economists had valued the "unproductive" human work instead of the "productive" work, then the 19th and 20th century men would have been scrambling to find a way to get paid for staying home with their kids and would have sent their wives off to the factories. Of course all of this discussion of choice about who does which work completely ignores the poor and/or ethnic minorities who did and still do both productive and "non-productive" work just to keep themselves afloat because of their status in the U.S.
Still shouldn't we value the human contributions more? Probably not in our society--contributing to material wealth is always more important than the human wealth or costs of not valuing humans, animals, or not valuing anything beyond our own material needs.
Here is an overview from Wikipedia (not the best resource but an ok place to start):
The classical political economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo raised the economic question of which kinds of labour contributed to increasing society's wealth, as against activities which do not produce a vendible commodity which can be resold at a profit. They regarded human labour as the mainspring of wealth, and therefore they regarded the economical use of labour as highly important.
Within an enterprise, for example, there were many tasks which had to be performed, such as cleaning, record and bookkeeping or repairs, which did not directly contribute to producing and increasing wealth in the sense of making a net addition to it - in other words, such tasks represented a net cost to the enterprise which had to be minimized.
From this 18th/19th century spouting about an industrial economny, we can begin to understand how it is that "women's work" was denigraded and classified as less important. The work that was less important wasn't even necessarily women's work, but it seems that as that work was classified as less important, men gravitated to the important and left the women with the place "they deserved" and the work that they "deserved". I'm quoting because I think these attitudes are old fashioned and I don't believe that we have the same attitudes toward women today, yet we do have these same attitudes towards that type of work--no matter who is performing it.
If we truly looked at the human costs of not doing this work--then the work of raising children, keeping house, home cooking high quality food, record/bookkeeping becomes much more valuable. If these things didn't get done, how would any of the people doing the "productive" work accomplish anything? How would we even have anyone who was willing and able to do the "productive" work if mothers/fathers and teachers weren't raising thinking, caring human beings?
My suspicion is that if the Smith and other economists had valued the "unproductive" human work instead of the "productive" work, then the 19th and 20th century men would have been scrambling to find a way to get paid for staying home with their kids and would have sent their wives off to the factories. Of course all of this discussion of choice about who does which work completely ignores the poor and/or ethnic minorities who did and still do both productive and "non-productive" work just to keep themselves afloat because of their status in the U.S.
Still shouldn't we value the human contributions more? Probably not in our society--contributing to material wealth is always more important than the human wealth or costs of not valuing humans, animals, or not valuing anything beyond our own material needs.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Climate Change, Global Warming or not...isn't the point to protect the earth?
Individuals and political parties in some western cultures (mainly the U.S.) spend so much time debating whether the theories of climate changes as human induced are accurate or not, or whether the science is well thought out. What this debate sets up is an out for all the people who want to put their blinders back on.
I mean afterall, I would be thrilled to find out that the scientists were wrong and we really aren't going to burn up or cause species to die because of our thoughtless exploitation of the earth's natural resources. But this doesn't really address the bigger issue--Americans have, for years, exploited our own natural environment and our corporations have gone to developing countries to do the same. We waste, destroy, and create havoc. The point is not whether this wastefulness is driving catastrophic environmental change, but whether it is impacting someone, and whether we couldn't find a better way to handle things to minimize the impacts.
I think the people who profess that human induced climate change is "junk science" are purposefully taking the focus off human environmental impacts, so that the average person can feel off the hook and the average person can then consume more (without worrying about reducing his or her impact or even making efforts to recycle)--this return to consumption then benefits these proponents who are likely corporation owners.
I don't really care whether climate change is real or not. Sometimes Americans with blinders need something more to dig themselves out of the rut they are in and find a better way to treat our natural resources and this earth that sustains our lives, the lives of plants, and animals. Maybe the theory that we are driving the earth toward catastrophic change is enough to get people off their couches, out of their cars, and out of the stores. Maybe it will get them thinking about new ways to protect our planet.
I mean afterall, I would be thrilled to find out that the scientists were wrong and we really aren't going to burn up or cause species to die because of our thoughtless exploitation of the earth's natural resources. But this doesn't really address the bigger issue--Americans have, for years, exploited our own natural environment and our corporations have gone to developing countries to do the same. We waste, destroy, and create havoc. The point is not whether this wastefulness is driving catastrophic environmental change, but whether it is impacting someone, and whether we couldn't find a better way to handle things to minimize the impacts.
I think the people who profess that human induced climate change is "junk science" are purposefully taking the focus off human environmental impacts, so that the average person can feel off the hook and the average person can then consume more (without worrying about reducing his or her impact or even making efforts to recycle)--this return to consumption then benefits these proponents who are likely corporation owners.
I don't really care whether climate change is real or not. Sometimes Americans with blinders need something more to dig themselves out of the rut they are in and find a better way to treat our natural resources and this earth that sustains our lives, the lives of plants, and animals. Maybe the theory that we are driving the earth toward catastrophic change is enough to get people off their couches, out of their cars, and out of the stores. Maybe it will get them thinking about new ways to protect our planet.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Messy Roadways
As we walked and rode home from a mom and kids bike ride the other day with cars speeding past us, I wondered how different the roadways would be if more people walked or rode bikes. There was trash all along our route, and the safety of walking or riding was questionable with all the speeding cars.
As walkers/riders, we were going slow enough for me to notice what was around us. Broken plastic toys, fast food wrappings, pieces of paper all littered the roadside. The sidewalks and bike lanes near our house are totally inadequate. We often end up walking the bikes through the dirt and weeds to be safe. I always pick my bike routes based on a drive in the car. Once we get going, I realize how inadequate my review from the car is. The route is never as easy or safe as I think it looks when speeding by in a car. The small stretch of no sidewalk turns out to be a quarter mile of dirt, thorny thistles, and toddler treasure--dangerous trash.
If people would just get out of their cars and walk, they would probably care about all the trash they saw. They would probably slow down so they didn't hit a human being or animal. But, we all just speed by without a care, on to the next destination, because of course our society forces the destination rather than embracing the journey.
As walkers/riders, we were going slow enough for me to notice what was around us. Broken plastic toys, fast food wrappings, pieces of paper all littered the roadside. The sidewalks and bike lanes near our house are totally inadequate. We often end up walking the bikes through the dirt and weeds to be safe. I always pick my bike routes based on a drive in the car. Once we get going, I realize how inadequate my review from the car is. The route is never as easy or safe as I think it looks when speeding by in a car. The small stretch of no sidewalk turns out to be a quarter mile of dirt, thorny thistles, and toddler treasure--dangerous trash.
If people would just get out of their cars and walk, they would probably care about all the trash they saw. They would probably slow down so they didn't hit a human being or animal. But, we all just speed by without a care, on to the next destination, because of course our society forces the destination rather than embracing the journey.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
I just can't feel sorry for these people Why isn't the news upset about the poor?
An article online in the Wall Street Journal titled "From Ordering Steak and Losbster to Serving it" details the life after wall street for one man and his family. I just don't know if these stories are trying to get our sympathy or what. I don't feel anything except disgust when I read and hear these on the news over and over. I mean now they are living like the rest of us instead of living a life of excess...so what exactly is the problem here?
"Mr. Araya's wife, Dennise, has gone back to work as an administrative assistant for a construction company and leaves home at 6 a.m. Mr. Araya often works until one or two in the morning and on weekends, leaving little time for the family to be together. He calls his daughters every night during his break at the restaurant on his cellphone to say good night. (I work at night and my husband puts the kids to bed two nights a week. My husband gets up at 4:30 am every day for work.)
Mr. Araya now is the one who gets his children ready for school. He's learned to tie pony tails, inadvertently shrunk sweaters in the wash and knows which grocery store has the best price on milk. (My husband helps with the laundry, gets the kids ready for bed, etc.)
The Arayas stopped dining out, pulled their daughters out of ballet and tumbling classes, and dropped cable television -- even though the flat screen he bought when they first moved in still sits in the living room. (We scrape to put our kids in karate lessons. And believe it or not you can get 15 or more channels with just a TV antenna)"
I just can't feel sorry for these people. What really gets me confused is why the news isn't reporting on things like the poor and people who don't have any health coverage, or report on someone who is using adversity to help others?
"Mr. Araya's wife, Dennise, has gone back to work as an administrative assistant for a construction company and leaves home at 6 a.m. Mr. Araya often works until one or two in the morning and on weekends, leaving little time for the family to be together. He calls his daughters every night during his break at the restaurant on his cellphone to say good night. (I work at night and my husband puts the kids to bed two nights a week. My husband gets up at 4:30 am every day for work.)
Mr. Araya now is the one who gets his children ready for school. He's learned to tie pony tails, inadvertently shrunk sweaters in the wash and knows which grocery store has the best price on milk. (My husband helps with the laundry, gets the kids ready for bed, etc.)
The Arayas stopped dining out, pulled their daughters out of ballet and tumbling classes, and dropped cable television -- even though the flat screen he bought when they first moved in still sits in the living room. (We scrape to put our kids in karate lessons. And believe it or not you can get 15 or more channels with just a TV antenna)"
I just can't feel sorry for these people. What really gets me confused is why the news isn't reporting on things like the poor and people who don't have any health coverage, or report on someone who is using adversity to help others?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
