Starbucks and the Internet's Bogeyman

So, Starbucks. I know, I know, but this isn't one of those posts, okay? I want to actually attempt to explain at least some of this bullshit.

As everyone in the United States has seen on repeat for the past news cycle, Starbucks replaced their red cups with snowflakes and doves on them with red cups.

The first I saw of the news was the sudden arrival of 80 billion posts on my friends' list complaining about people complaining about this change.

I saw not one actual complaint about the change.

My guess is, hardly any of my friends posting backlash against the backlash actually saw any original backlash either.

So, our knowledge of this "Starbucks controversy" comes in the form of replies to a complaint that, so far as I can tell, never really took off online. Sure, a few people were raising their hands to clouds and shouting Merry Christmas in their living rooms like every year, but, you know, most years we just tell grandpa to stop yelling at the TV and go back to our lives.

This year, for some reason, we decided to make up a bad guy and skewer him. And this news cycle, it happened to be right-wing Christians attacking Starbucks (whether or not they actually did). Because it is plausible enough that somewhere, someone who believes in the Savior was ticked off about the removal of a few white pictures on a red cup. Or, like, wouldn't it be funny and eye-roll inducing if there were someone mad about something like that? It WOULD. Okay, let's go with that. And then as people continue to open their computers, this happens:

Because it's an easy joke. It's an easy topic. It's an easy debate. It's easy. People like easy. And people love to tell other people that there are more important things going on than what they are worried about. Makes the first lot seem very important and worldly while they also get to contribute to the very topic they deem so unimportant.

And in this--very rare--case, Sbux cups actually ARE unimportant. (Usually, people telling other people their worries are meaningless because people are starving, or houses are burning and etc., are just falling back on a logical fallacy to inflate their own sense of importance). But not this time.

So, Starbucks cups.

Meanwhile, there is Mizzou, there are protests in the Philippines, Russia has a nuclear torpedo, we're close to finding life outside our solar system, Israelis are killing Palestinians in hospitals, Yale students are being Yale students, the ozone hole is as big as it was at record bigness, and the like.

All below the fold to Starbucks and its new cup.

Why?

Let me tell you.

In communications academia we have this theory called agenda setting. It basically states that the media set the agenda for the public and its opinion. To break that down: the media tell the people what is important to them and how they should think about the issue. And the public then responds. This is a self-propelling phenomenon, as whether or not the public agrees with the salience of the issue the media tell it is important, they still contribute to that salience by responding. Ergo, what the media decide to promote is the issue that goes to the front lines. And all the people railing against that power simply make that power stronger.

So, why would media focus on a Starbucks marketing decision, amid all the actual important news out there? As mentioned before, it is easy.

You see, even though media set the agenda for the public, media are beholden to what the public will actually talk about and they pay people like me big money to tell them what those issues are going to be. In the online age particularly, picking a topic that the public will respond to and argue over quickly and virally is of utmost importance to continue the relevance of any given publications, and guys, the media knows you a little bit. It's been serving you for a while now.

The media knows that liberals want to laugh about how stupid conservative people are, and that conservative people want to be like, bro, I don't even care about a cup, wtf, and that religious people want to chime in about a very important piece of their lives no matter where they fall in the argument.

The argument, remember, that isn't even happening because who of any importance actually said, OMG STARBUCKS HATES CHRISTIANS.

Not one person. At least in the early days.

In fact, the media TOLD Donald Trump (and a few other "important / newsworthy" people, that this was an issue, and basically invited them to be that guy. Because you can't fight a ghost forever.

So when Trump did his Trumply duty and spoke on it, we all wiped our brows in relief. It worked. The plan worked. We got our bad guy.

And when Dunkin' Donuts saw a chance to get its name in the news because holy crap, what a TON of advertising for Sbux right now, and that is totally unfair to the other coffee chains, it, too, made its own followup. Then Ellen and other people with credibility stepped in.

And now we've got a story with legs. And we get to sit back and say, "See, public? We told you this was a big deal and you heard it here first. We told you this was a big story. We broke this story. You know, the story we completely fabricated."

Another win for publications filling pages looking for clicks.

And the public began to play along. After a million posts starting with those memes above, then going into the actual news stories linked just after those, people started to voice their opinions on the issue and we got ourselves a nice (if tiny), eff-the-pc-police camp. So, thanks, internet commenters. You've done your job. In my public search, I found two. TWO.

"So I went to Starbucks to test the no Merry Christmas bull that Donald Trump has been talking about, and sure enough, they are not allowed to say it or write it on your cup! So not only do they support killing babies by employee matching planned parenthood, but they really have banned the use of Christmas this season! Thinking it's about time for a total boycott!"

"Christmas is the best holiday of the year. It has nothing to do with religion - it's about family time, snuggling, warm cider, christmas trees, gift-giving, reindeer and santa claus ...
The disappointment with Starbucks is about the PC-neutralization of American culture, and not about religion.
Once again Trump has the right idea. Dump Starbucks. Peet's has better coffee anyways, and they have holiday cheer!"

Okay great.


But we still haven't answered why the media choose to inflate the importance of stories like this. And I can't speak for them, I can only speak for me, but I can tell you, as a member of the media, it is hard to report on news. News is sad. And bad. And angry. And unfair. And people are fucking dying out there every day. And it's our job to tell you about it. And you don't want to hear about it, and we don't want to write about it, not because we don't care, but because we care so much, and we are helpless. We are the mouthpiece of the atrocities of the world, and we soon learn that just telling people about these atrocities does not end those atrocities. Only action and behavioral change on a systemic level does. And news articles are like bb guns in the fight to create that change. We have entire models on this, again, in academia. Changing behavior in just ONE individual takes the perfect recipe of facts, timing and interest on the part of that person that must be applied for months if not years. Changing the behavior in a society? That takes decades, and millions of voices, and the change is slow and painful and we're tired.

So, the public wants a break to complain about a cup?

Sometimes we just give up and agree. Yes, let's do that instead. For today. Tomorrow, back on the social justice boat.

Creepster Alert (or how to recognize a potential stalker on social media)

This is a creeper alert.

So many of us post pictures of ourselves and our families and children on Facebook, and did you know that even if you do it friends only, someone can share that picture with their network AND save it to their photo page by tagging themselves in it?

Did you further know that if someone tags themselves in your picture (ie: you aren't the tagger), you, as the owner of the picture, do not have the option to untag them?

Did you even further know that unfriending the person will not untag them? You have to full out block them in order for that tag to be removed.

The good news is that if a creepy creepster is tagging himself (or herself) in your photos to make you part of a creepy FB picture collection, you probably want to block them anyway. So, seriously, get to blocking.

That's me yesterday. Those are my kids. We are going out with my husband to a Mothers Day dinner.

I do not know Jerry Jackson.

I was not "with" him.

I have never met him, and the one interaction I had with him before this left me with a creeper-alert feeling.

I was right.

He's now blocked.

But if you look at his photo page, he makes a habit of tagging himself in women's photos a lot. So that he essentially has an album of women in dresses. Probably hardly any of them whom he actually knows. That's some pretty bold creepy right that. That's some gross.

Here's the story:

Probably about a year ago, I accepted a friend request from a guy I didn't know. I never do this, but I accepted this request because we had a mutual friend who is also a journalist whom I respect without question and because his profile read that he was a professor overseas, and those two things combined seemed legit. She probably would know a professor overseas and maybe he read my stuff and liked it and had story ideas for me, or whatever.

After the acceptance, I forgot about it because we had no reason to interact.

Then two months ago, he sent me a random PM and I noticed our mutual friend had vanished. I also noticed that he spoke like a chain email from a Nigerian prince, but I've been insensitive to English Second Language before, so aside from noticing, no judgement. Except, probably not a professor. And today when I alerted a group of women to this man's behavior, their investigation showed that, no, he is not a professor at the University of Oxford. Jury's still out on whether or not he used to work for or with One Direction though. Um...

I'm one of those people who feels bad about unfriending people. In fact, this person has become only the second person I've unfriended, and he is the first I've blocked. As such, I actually replied to his response that day:

And that was the end of it. He let the conversation drop, which was fine by me. I had meant to unfriend him after that, but something in my real life distracted me, the little pm box vanished in my ever exploding inbox, and we had no further interaction of any kind, so I forgot all about it.

Until this morning.

When he tagged my photo of me and my girls.

Now, most of the women's photos where he tags himself are young, made-up gorgeous-looking women in fancy, sexy evening wear. But of the 80 or so photos (two of which he tagged himself in just minutes after tagging mine), a few scattered photos were like mine. A nice enough looking mom with her children. Why?

Two of his friends (both nice enough looking moms with children in their profile pictures) liked my photo within minutes. So my theory is, he uses photos of his 'friends' with kids to counteract the damn creepiness of scoping young, single women in dresses looking glam. My photo in which he tagged himself perhaps lent legitimacy to his online persona. The other women don't know I don't know him. They probably fully believe I was "with him" at the time. Or, if they've had their own photos co-opted by him, perhaps it gave them a feeling of peace. 'Maybe it's a compliment,' they might be thinking. 'Maybe he just likes the photos and tags himself to show how much more he likes them than the average liker. At the very least, I'm not the only woman this has happened to, so maybe it's more normal than I think.'

Well, I'm not going to be a party to normalizing creepy behavior online, and I'm certainly not going to allow my children's photo to be stacked up in an online library of pictures of women this guy "was with".

Before the internet, someone collecting photos of women like this would have easily been the subject of a crime thriller movie. Why on Earth would the medium of Facebook suddenly make it okay?

Ladies, if someone you don't know requests you as a friend, and you accept that request, if they give you ANY reason to unfriend them, do it.

And if they act like Mr. Jerry Jackson, here, block them and report them, too. It's not just for you. It's for the other women. And there are almost always other women. Someone must speak for them because too often they second guess and forget and do not speak for themselves. And then they're part of a collection of creepy photos online.

Nope.

Is Valentines Day the new Christmas?

I don't love Valentines Day, but I don't hate Valentines Day, but I don't really care about Valentines Day, but not in the way where I feel the need to tell people all about how much I don't care (except for right now, but I'm going somewhere with this, so just hang on.)

To me, Valentines Day is a nice little holiday on par with, say, Arbor Day. It's like a mini-holiday. I've always considered it as a cute little side-note to a normal day where if you've got kids you've got to throw down for some extra crafts and cake, and if you've got a partner, you maybe buy a rose or a card or a chocolate heart or something. Then you say Happy Valentines Day and you move on to the laundry and grocery shopping.

Apparently I am wrong.

Inside this house, it's cool. My kids are watching MegaMind while slowly eating honey toast and bugging me about starting on their V-Day candy already. We've got a cake for later and some chocolate (the good kind...because I love myself). We'll play and work and do chores, and call it a day.

But on Facebook, oh, Facebook. I swear it is like Christmas up in my computer. Everything from Galentine's Day (which I didn't even know was a thing until this year, but sounds pretty rad), to Venereal Disease jokes, to sweet memes, to funny memes, to virtual cards. It's your favorite holiday, you hate this holiday, it's a commercial holiday, etc. etc.

Here, let me physically scroll right now, and I will paste the first five statuses on my feed. (Not searching for V-day, just the first five, regardless of content).

1) Happy Valentines Day to all the lovers out there. (picture of a flower)

2) Who says Valentines Day has to be commercialized? I just love any reason to celebrate and have some fun. (picture of homemade V-Day cards)

3) True love is picking the same thing to watch on Netflix. (Oh, FB and your sponsored posts.)

4) Valentines Schmalentines.

5) An Oklahoma student surprises thousands of women with homemade valentines so no one on campus felt left out this holiday (link to news story)

So, clearly, this is a big deal. Feelings about this are a big deal. Saying something about this is a big deal. But I still don't get why. The emphasis is really confusing me.

I mean, the people we love, we obviously love every day, but, yeah, it's nice to have a day set aside where we're reminded to tell them how special they are.

But that takes two seconds, for real.

So, here's mine. Happy Valentines Day, everyone. You're great.

Now I've got some dishes to do.

In which Facebook tells me my kids will kill a dog

Facebook.

Lovely Facebook.

I realize most people use the social media platform to show the world their ideal selves, throw up their highlight reel. I use mine more like a blooper reel, to  be honest, and for the most part, that serves me well.

I don't care if people know my house is sometimes messy, or if my kids sometimes misbehave. I make mistakes, and I post about those. I fail in the kitchen, in the home, in trying to be fashionable, in writing, in life. And I post about it. Because I'm a real person and I just don't have the energy to put my best foot forward. Sometimes I don't even have a best foot, it's true.

That said, just because I share things that aren't all roses and sunshine all the time, doesn't mean Facebook friends know me any better than they know anyone else. They certainly don't know me better than I do.

That said, I got a dog a few weeks ago.

Before I got this puppy, I had done a lot of research online, finding the right match for our family. I'd been looking since October. I also have had and trained a few dogs in my lifetime, though none so small (he's a Chorkie, and will top out at 8-10 pounds) and none while I had a family.

Facebook, though, didn't know that. Facebook only knew that I posted a picture of the little guy along with the status: "Going to see this little guy tomorrow. If all goes well, we'll be getting a puppy."

This was enough to set the social medium on fire, apparently.

Amid the squeals of omgcutepuppy, there were a few concerned yet respectful comments inquiring as to whether I knew what I was getting into with a puppy. Understandable. As much as I share on social media, I hadn't found reason ever to go into my history with dogs, or even (aside from one comment months before) to indicate that I was researching puppy options for the family. I put those fears to rest with a brief explanation. Then I got this comment:

"How long are you home everyday? Aren't you gone quiet a bit with grad school? And doing other stuff. A small dog that is going to top out at ten pounds most can't really go more then two hours with out bringing them outside when they are itty bitty puppies. With two kids who can go from fine to freak out in two seconds a small puppy could easily get hurt,or a broken bone or worst case dead are you prepared for them to fight over a puppy and how to handle that? Also asking which is better to house or crate train makes me think you have not really 100% thought this through and you're just thinking omgPUPPY. And while they may look cute I also don't think a yorkie corgi mix is really a good mix for your family. You could end up with a nightmare nuerotic dog real quick. Please look more up on both breeds and search around for puppy classes and if you really do plan on impulse buying a puppy and get it to puppy classes ASAP. And I hope you're not paying a ridic amount for basically a mutt."

So much wrong with this comment. Not that I have to defend my life or my choices, but I'm not gone hardly at all. I'm home basically always. I thought crate training meant training the dog to go to the bathroom inside. Crate training and house training were the same to me. So, yes, got me on misuse of terminology. Not a Corgi mix. Not an impulse buy. And for someone so concerned about the apparently downtrodden and horrid life this dog is about to have, that last line calling him a mutt and not wanting me to spend money (ie: ensure I make a commitment to this decision) stands out as odd.

Now.

How about we deal with this: "With two kids who can go from fine to freak out in two seconds a small puppy could easily get hurt,or a broken bone or worst case dead are you prepared for them to fight over a puppy and how to handle that?"

I'm sorry, but no matter how well you think you know me, Facebook, it is totally inappropriate to imply my children would kill a dog. They are six. They're not going to tear it apart like a stuffed animal because they can't control themselves.

This was my reply at the time.

"Thanks. I'm home all day. My kids won't break the pup's bones either. I've bought and trained dogs before, as well. Though they were 25-40 American Eskimos. My kids also won't fucking kill the dog."

I figured that would be it. Thank you for your slightly inappropriate concern, here's why it's not valid, have a good day. Nope. More puppy drama ensued (puppy drama, Facebook. Are we serious?)

I was unfriended and then a status was made about how my home isn't stable and said ex-friend wasn't going to stand by while I let a puppy into this house.

Oh.

You're right, Facebook. This is clearly a dog fearing for his life, daily.

I made a few statuses about it myself, because when you're fighting on Facebook over a dog, you can't let such an important topic drop, amirite?

The first status just let Facebook know that while I appreciated its concern, I simply didn't tell the medium everything, and rest-assured, I pretty much had a handle on my life at all times, as wacky as my statuses may sometimes seem.

Thankfully, most of my friends have good senses of humor, and I got these types of responses:

"Good lord is this over the fucking DOG? Buy the dog, fuck anyone who thinks you're under qualified or over paying. Can you take a dump without everyone commenting on the size/shape/color?"

"Hang on, I have lots of relevant advice for you. I would hate for you to make a decision for your family without my super important input you didn't ask for."

"AS EXPERTS ON YOUR LIFE AND LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE DOG BREED OR CROSS BREED IN EXISTENCE, LET ME TELL YOU WHY I THINK YOU'RE A TERRIBLE PERSON FOR BUYING A PUPPY."

We continue to have fun with it. I let everyone know I also have a fish they didn't know about and everyone clutches pearls in jest. Someone asks me if we're breaking up.

"Well, I guess that depends on whether you think my kids are big enough assholes that they'd straight kill a dog.
If yes, we may have to go our separate ways. But don't worry. I'll pick up the check. Right after I impulse buy a puppy that I never researched until right now when I posted about it."

And I'm just putting this comment here because it makes me laugh:

"like how have your kids ever come across as aggressive puppy tossing cage fighters? Sure they have their twin moments, but even that seemed like when they were younger like all kids. They don't come across as unruly maniacs who would grab a dog by one end and pull it in half. They seem p level headed from how you discuss them."

Aggressive puppy tossing cage fighters. I die.

Okay, so we all have our fun, the other status that I can't see because I was unfriended is going on, and it's all about how I seriously should NOT get a dog because it spells doom and I'd just be the worst pet owner.

Yup. Totally the worst. This poor creature.

Anyway, I could have let it drop. But, I mean, how often do you get to participate in puppy drama? I'm guessing it's once in a lifetime. So I made one more status. Your typical, searching-for-validation-even-though-it-couldn't-be-farther-from-necessary post.

"I mean, like, there's a difference between brutal honesty and alleging someone's six year old, fairly competent (if emotional) kids will kill a dog, amirite? I think I'm right on this one. Just saying."

I got almost 200 comments validating me when I didn't need to be validated, because I play Facebook. I like validation. I like statuses. I like comments. I like conversations. I also appreciated the level of pure ridiculousness we had reached.

I mean, I'm busy a lot of the time. But when I'm not, you can find me on Facebook, fighting for my right to own a dog.

...

So, in conclusion, when you go to comment on someone's status about something you know all the stuffs about, take heed. Maybe the person also knows what they are doing. Maybe their kids actually won't kill a dog.

Always remember, Facebook, you're not my mom.

Why are we always apologizing for expressing ourselves? -- Guest Post

Today I found out that I have Lyme Disease. It has already invaded my joints, judging from puffy tautness of my left hand knuckles and wrist. I have no memory of yanking a tick from my skin. But that’s beside the point.

Yesterday in my online journal I complained about how much my wrist hurt. Immediately after posting that I posted an apology for whining.

That got me thinking.

It’s a strange business communicating online. On Facebook we’re expected to put on public faces and post photos of our loved ones, or, save that, repost inspirational quotes or photos of cute baby animals. Online journals traditionally eschew that for intimacy with a handpicked built-in audience who will celebrate your joys, comfort you in your grief, help you solve an issue you’re currently experiencing.

One thing I’ve noticed over the years is how we’re apt to apologize for complaining online about something.

Doesn’t that sound weird to you?

If we want to vent, whine, or complain about something in our own space why do we suddenly feel the need to apologize? Is it because we shouldn’t express the, shall we say, less sunshiny sides of ourselves? Is it because we’re afraid we’ll alienate our audience? What if we can’t stop whining? Why do we feel we need permission to vent about an actual medical condition?

Maybe our support systems are too preoccupied to listen to our woes. Perhaps our friends live too far away for us to drop in for coffee and a chat.

Maybe we should just shut up, put on the proverbial big girl panties and deal.

BUT WHY DO WE FEEL WE HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR ALL OF THIS?

I sure as hell don’t know. All I know is that I’ve been diagnosed with a disease which, if left unchecked, can wreak havoc not only with my nervous system but also with my short-term memory. I’m already past the too-tired-to-move stage.

As I said in my online journal, I know, in the greater scheme of things, Lyme is a mere blip and it boggles my mind that someone as relatively healthy as me has it.

I apologized in my own online journal because I didn’t want my friends – my audience – to think badly of me. I still have that tiny “what if they don’t like me anymore?” shred left over from junior high. I don’t want them to think I’m tedious or I’ve branded myself as The Woman With Lyme. Ergo, I apologize. In my own space.

Heck, apologizing can just be as tedious as whining.

Here’s a thought: Maybe, just maybe, if we all stopped apologizing we’d be more apt to accept ourselves as the flawed humans we are.

I have Lyme Disease which now explains all the niggling conditions I’ve had for the past few months.

As soon as I finish this I’m going to take my first dose of doxycycline and call it a night.



And I’m not apologizing for it.
...

Kathi B. is a writer and baker living in New England.




 

10 things sexier than breastfeeding

Oh Facebook. You again.

The other day, my friend at Fine and Fair wrote a great post on feminism and breastfeeding.

She used this picture:

 

Courtesy of Fine and Fair

Facebook denied her the oh-so-sweet privilege of paying a few dollars to "boost" the post (which, if you haven't noticed, they've changed their algorithms again so that if you do not "boost" your page's post, basically five people see it. Hello, ello).

ANYWAY, to commemorate this monumental occasion, here are 10 parenting occasions sexier than breastfeeding:

10) That time your toddler slipped you the tongue when you gave her a goodnight kiss and thought it was HILARIOUS. Okay, not all that sexy, but probably more french kissing than you usually get.

parent24.com

9) These slick drawings.

Reddit

Reddit

8) Laundry.

pgeveryday.com

I mean, if you really want to get dirty.


7) Movie night.

villians.wikia.com

Don't tempt us, Yzma.


6) These pajamas

polyvore.com

Because if you are wearing them, the kids are most likely in bed, which increases chances of
actual sex by, like, 23 percent.

5) Wine

goodhousekeeping.com

Literally the sexiest thing on the planet after a long day of rearing the next generation.


4) Grocery shopping

Where you buy the wine, duh.


3) Coffee.

It's sexy even though it never looks anything like the pictures.

2) The babysitter

This means a night out. Which increases chances of actual sex by 54 percent.

1) Grandparents

Because if you're really lucky, they might take the kids for the  whole  night. Which places chances of sex squarely at 82-87 percent.

...

So, in conclusion, Facebook should ban photos of grandparents. Because nothing turns people on like the possibility of eight or more hours to themselves.

   

16 Steps to Every Argument a Man Has with a Woman Online

Now, I know what you are thinking. Every argument is different. The players involved are different. The content and context are different. There's no way this piece can be indicative of a general reality.

Only it is.

I am going to use a specific argument to flesh out my points, but that's only because this particular argument went on for 1,000 comments and covered every single base. Usually, only a few of these show up at the same time. But in this case, we got a bingo, and that needs to be recognized. In fact, I've even left off a few, due to length.

1) A condescending comment from a man to a woman, meant to be a "compliment". Usually this occurs when a thread is already in session. This time, the man had the guts to go to this woman's page, and post it with no prompting at all.

Let's take a moment to go through this before we get into our next steps:

a) You were using your radio voice again.

This implies it's an issue that's been spoken about between two people before, with the receiver acknowledging the advice and vowing to make a change. That isn't the case. This person hardly knows this woman, and they had not spoken about her voice before. (Which also happens to be...her voice. Not some random act for you to find "cute.")

b) Very cute, but no offense

Any time you see the words "no offense" that is a guarantee whatever comes next is about to be offensive. If you find yourself using that phrase, stop. Do not speak on.

c) Exude the confidence I know you have. Be proud of the 30-year-old professional that you are. Who knows, maybe you can be the anchor someday. I look forward to seeing that.

This implies she's not proud of herself and doesn't have confidence. This woman is a hard-hitting, no-nonsense reporter and has been so for decades. She doesn't want to be an anchor, either. Surprise! Not everyone does! (She's also not 30, lol). This basically says turn into my vision of your goal for yourself so I can get behind this. And...no.

d) Good luck doll.

GOOD LUCK DOLL.

Okay, back to our steps:

2) Understandable backlash from people who see the offensive comment:

"Just saw your post here on _______'s Facebook page. You were using that douchey, neckbeardy tone again. Very cute, but no offense, you sound like a 45-year-old asshat. Exude the intelligence I know you must have since you're friends with ________. Be proud of the 30-year-old professional she already is. Who knows? Maybe you could actually turn into a supportive and good friend. I look forward to seeing that. Then I can say, "I saw you that one time when." Good luck, bro."

3) Bystanders completely baffled at aim of original comment and attempted deconstruction:

Q - I can't even get my head around his motivation. Hitting on you by "negging"? Honest but assholish attempt at advice? He secretly hates you and has been biding his time for an opening to be mean? 

A - "This woman will appreciate that I see the potential she has, and that I am treating her almost like a real person because I'm asking her to be a person that commands respect, while at the same time, I am expressing fondness and familiarity toward her with my cutesy taglines that degrade her into exactly what I just told her she ought not be. In this way, I show her that her intellect is worth something, but also that I am not immune to her 19yo femininely wiles. Then maybe she'll be so grateful, she'll take my advice, act as I've advised with everyone, except me. With me she'll be soft and child-like, just like a woman should. I am very complex."

4) The original commenter says "I wasn't talking to you." (even though the comment is open for all to see, and not a PM).

I really was just trying to help. I'm sorry for offending you. But since ______ herself hasn't flamed me, I'm going to assume that she accepted my constructive criticism. Notice that she didn't "like" any of your comments?

5) Professional accolades and accomplishments that mean nothing are trotted out.

In this case, our man is an architect and we can thank him for many beautiful buildings. This obviously entitles him to give shitty advice in regards to news broadcasting. He knows things, guys.

6) The person he is talking to says something. Anything.

In this case, it's kickass. I mean, boom.

7) Bye, Felicia.

That should end our story, but alas.

8) Women who have been watching the thread understandably rejoice.

8) The White Knight. Some other dudebro comes around a bit later, feeling the urge to tell the women who were insulted how wrong and mean they are.

I found the thread rather depressing myself. ______'s response was detailed, on point, and said everything she wanted to say. Almost everything else just reinforces my conviction that FB is like the worst aspects of high school.

9) Dogpile and Bullying are invoked. (Remember, this man comes into this space, which was clearly dying down, to take ownership of it and make it all about him.)

what you seem to be saying is that this is a venue where you can be rude and bullying without consequences. _________'s response was a textbook case of taking the high road, and would be perfectly appropriate delivered to someone's face, not to mention a spot on, devestating rebuke to condescending assholism. About half the comments here are just textbook gang-bullying by people who probably think of themselves as decent human beings in real life. 

I've been on the bottom of these kind of dog piles, and it's no fun. The really disturbing part is seeing people who probably think of themselves as progressive resorting to bullying tactics I associate with the extreme right, like "feminizing" one's opponent by insinuating he's some kind of sissy ("did we get our wittle fee fees hurt" etc.) and a group of individuals ganging up on someone who has expressed the "wrong' opinion. It's like the mean girls club in high school.

11) Mansplaining.

If I may offer a bit of advice (yeah, I know, mansplaining") but why give a shit about being labelled a "bitch"? The men who hang that on you are assholes whose respect you don't need, and the rest of us understand that you have to drop a hammer on these twerps or they just waste everybody's time. 

It's a difficult line to walk. It's hard for me too, and the sad truth is there are plenty of men out there who don't like being "bossed around" by a women. But hey, fuck them, you know? That's their problem, not yours.

Oh my God, we were so wrong about you. You totally "get" it. You even know you're mansplaining. Thank you so much for validating our lives, and yet again telling us how we can behave. We have never seen this before.

12) Watch your tone, ladies. (I'm Darlena, so one less black mark I have to amateurishly make in paint.) Annnnyway, maybe we would get what we wanted out of our communications with men if we were just nicer. Thanks for letting us know what your idea of a discussion is. We will try to behave better and adhere to your ideal discussion.

13) Concern Trolling. They're just looking out for our best interests. As men, they can help us win this world. If we'd only let them share their valuable and relevant experiences.

Concern trolling. I'm pretty sure you knew what was going to happen if you came into this thread AS A MAN and tried to school us all, yet you decided to do it anyway. I have absolutely no doubt that you are here without any attempt at respect, and seek only to piss us all off so that you can get off to it.

14) Pre-conceived notions / Not all men. Then, inevitably, women standing up for themselves against mansplaining get the 'you don't even know me' line, sometimes plied with 'not all men are like what you say we are!' Okay, that's true. Not all men are like that. But you are.

15) The follow up. Then the conversation usually goes like this:

Woman: "I just don't understand why this even has to happen. A condescending, sexist as fuck post was made. From very early on it was very clear this post was not okay. But instead of any apology, or even at attempt at self reflection, an attempt to listen to any of us, it's just flailing and whining that we're mean bitches. I'm so sick of this shit."

White Knight: "what you seem to be saying is that I should just fuck off, butt out, and slink back into my hole. That I have no right to join this discussion in anyway unless my contribution consists of "yeahyourite." Cool. Enjoy your epistemic closure. Who died annd made you king of this thread"

16) You people.

Woman: He's acting like we did this to HIM. He's the one who came into this post to shit stir it all up again just because he clearly enjoys putting women in our place and finger wagging at us.

White Knight: If the tables were turned, I would not participate in the bullying, mob behaviour. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

This is normally where I'd write a witty conclusion, but Julia wrote one for me, right on that thread, so I'll leave you with this, the point of the deconstruction.


"Women are allowed to support each other. We're allowed to get annoyed or pissed off at men who constantly belittle our efforts, our work, our choices, at men who only want to comment on our physical attributes instead of, quite literally, ANYTHING ELSE we happen to do. Hence the anger at the original post. Which is still one of the shittiest negging posts I've read in a long, long time.

We're allowed to respond however we want. It doesn't make us stupid, or not worth being listened to, or not worthy of being right. Our response does not make it okay for you to hop into the post, insult all of us willy nilly at once, then act surprised when we respond.

Fucking goddamn ridiculous.

You've tried to police women for how we respond to sexism with more sexism. You've derailed the conversation completely with your own intense need to finger wag at women.

You have NO BUSINESS telling women how we should or should not respond to asshole men. We live this life every single fucking day and we have every single right to get pissed off if we want to. Just because YOU don't like our tone does not mean our message and our points are invalidated, no matter how hard you're trying to invalidate them and pretend they aren't important because of the words chosen to express ourselves.

You have talked over women, you have talked down to us. You have tried to mansplain how we should respond to situations that are, quite frankly, none of your fucking business.

You call us bullies, a mob. And yet you're perfectly content to try to bully us into being silent, to bully us into responding how you see fit. You are doing the exact same shit you claim we are, when you're the one who jumped into this thread for no reason only than to be a condescending asshole.

In short: go fuck yourself."

So, if you are a man, thinking about engaging in a debate with a woman about how society treats her...

DON'T.






   

7 Things about Pictures of Naked Kids Online -- Contributor Post

I actually had someone report pictures of my girls in their underwear playing in a sprinkler, and in a bathtub (in bathing suit shorts!). They were taken down. And I loled. Okay, dude. W/e. ANYWAY, today Pollychromatic has shared with me an important post on pictures of children on the Internet...what do you think?

...


I have a lot of friends who are photographers. I don’t mean the kind of people who take a bunch of pictures. I mean, honest to goodness, saved up bunches of money for the good equipment, spend lots of time on it, these are actually beautiful, photographers.

I also have a lot of friends who are parents. Some are both. Most parents end up dabbling in photography to one degree or another. It’s part of the territory.

You take pictures of your kids. You take them for you, and you take them in trust for your children when they are adults and want to see pictures of their childhood. You take them for family spread far and wide. You take them for friends. You take them because when you look at your kids, you overfill with pride, joy, and love. You want to give that to everyone. To share a bit of what you see when you look at your child. If you happen to fall into the first category also, your pictures also happen to generally be enjoyable for everyone.

Most people enjoy pictures of kids, though. There’s no real artistry needed. We were all kids once. If our childhoods weren’t ideal, then we generally are happy to see pictures of kids where that isn’t true. It’s a sort of reset on hope, you know? If our childhoods were good, then it’s a reminder of that.

Because we live in the FUTURE! we’re lucky enough that we can share the heck out of these pictures in a way that isn’t too onerous. There’s no more slideshows of the family vacation that you don’t care about. There’s an album online, and you can skip it or not. For the family and friends that are scattered far and wide, though, it means staying connected to each other and each other’s families in a way that only neighbors were able to do in the past.

Which is wonderful and awful all at once. I’ve already said some of the ways that it’s wonderful, and lots has been said about the different ways it’s awful, but one of the ways it’s awful really needs to be addressed.

See, I’ve had several friends now that have had their Facebook accounts flagged and their pictures flagged because somebody deemed that their pictures that they took of their lovely children were in some way inappropriate. By and large we are talking about pictures where you can’t see anything other than the fact that the child is probably naked. Maybe. Under the censored bits. Or the bits that aren’t actually in frame.

So the pictures and accounts are flagged, because hey, we don’t want pedophiles to see the pictures and target our children. Which, hey, is such a mixed bag of myth that I don’t even know where to start with it. But I’m going to.

Before I start though, I am going to say that yes. There are some very bad parents out there. Some parents who do, in actuality, want to pimp their children out. We’ve all read the news, and we know that it happens. It’s baffling, and horrific, and goes against every basic instinct of loving and protecting children, of basic human decency, that the vast majority of us operate with, but it does happen. I’m not talking about that today. I don’t know that I ever will. You go somewhere else for that, okay? That’s beyond the scope of my ability to talk about in a sane and rational way.

I’m going to give a list of reasons why you shouldn’t worry so hard about innocent pictures of innocent children.

1. This is not the child pornography that you’ve heard about online.

This makes me sad to say, but your innocent bath picture of your kid with a washcloth on, or blurred bits, or heck, even without it is not the child pornography that the pedophiles are looking for. This kind of wanders into the area of things I didn’t want to talk about because it makes my head break open and all the tears fall forever, but there are horrific photos of children online. Lots of them. Whole awful, pustulent corners of the internet dedicated to just that. The pedophiles want those pictures.

2. The vast majority of sexual molestation is done by people you know, who are actually in your everyday life.
It’s stepparents, and grandparents, and parents, and the parents’ boyfriends or girlfriends. It’s friends of the family that you have over for dinner regularly. It’s uncles and aunts and cousins. It’s your children’s friends’ parents. It’s counselors and priests and neighbors. It’s not strangers from the internet who happened upon your child’s pictures. That is so rare that it is beyond statistical ability to enumerate.

3. You can not make someone suddenly have a sexual interest in children.

This is something in them. This is not something you do. This is not something that your children do. This is a wrongness in that person. You can dress a child up in the sexiest of clothes, and give them the most dazzling make-up job, and there is not a single right-headed individual that is going to have a sexual thought about that child. Because it’s a child. Because you have to be wrong-headed to look at a child and find them sexual.

4. The people who look at children and find them sexually enticing do not need the children to be naked.
This is just another form of blaming the victim. It’s likely born of the same “I can keep me and mine safe” thoughts, too. People who abuse others sexually are not enticed into it. This is a wrongness in them. It’s not something that the victim can make happen. Pedophiles find children sexually arousing, clothed or not, because of the defilement. Because of the abuse of power. Because they can. Fully clothed, or genitals actually showing, it’s all the same because what the abuser is looking to do is hurt the child. Children could go through their entire childhoods fully clothed even for baths and there would still be sexual molestation, sad to say.

5. You keep your child as safe as you can from sexual molestation by teaching them that saying no and getting help is always okay. Always.

There’s been a lot of talk about this in the mommyblog world for a while. All the different ways that adults undermine children’s bodily integrity and right to say no. We tell them that they have to kiss grandma or give us a hug, or tickle them beyond when they say no. We tell them that they’re wrong when they say they feel a certain way about something or that their feelings do not matter (and yes, I know that their teeth need to be brushed even if they don’t feel like it, but that doesn’t mean their their feelings about it don’t matter). Whenever we tell them that they have to do what grown ups tell them to do, or that what they think is immaterial, we are undermining our children’s basic safety system.

6. The vast majority of sexual molestation is done by people you know, who are actually in your everyday life.

Can I just mention this again? Because yeah.

7. There used to be a lot of pictures of kids naked and we didn’t think anything of it.

A lot of us who are in our 30′s or older come from a time when just about everyone had pictures of themselves as children or babies naked in a bath, or on a rug, or any of a number of other regular everyday kid things that nobody thought was somehow enticing to pedophiles. Heck, in my day, it wasn’t all that unusual for a little kid to run around in the neighborhood naked. It was discouraged, sure, but nobody thought the pedophiles were waiting with baited breath on the doorstep for some naked kid to snatch up.

These weren’t the good old days. Don’t get me wrong. Nobody also thought the pedophiles were in their family. Or at their church. They thought it mostly didn’t happen, and if it did it was strangers snatching kids up. Which we mostly know better of nowadays. Right? Right.

Now, I can’t tell you if the incidence of childhood sexual abuse has truly gone up or down in the last 50 years. The facts are that it has historically been an under reported crime because it is a crime that is perpetrated on those who are the most voiceless in our communities.

I can tell you that the incidences of strangers kidnapping children to do harm to them has not gone up (and you’ll notice in there that the most statistically dangerous people in children’s lives are actually the parents, which is sad and horrible, but there it is). So there it is. Please stop worrying about pictures of kids online that are normal pictures.

Change your focus to teaching children that they have the right to say what happens to their bodies, and that if someone tries to do something to them sexually, they can safely get help. You can (and should) teach them that it isn’t their fault if something does happen, and that consent is always necessary. You can teach them to speak up if they see others being abused. You can get involved in helping to stop childhood sex trafficking. You can do any number of things that actually help reduce the problem. But you can stop worrying about pictures that you or your friends post of their kids that are perfectly innocent. If it really riles you up, teach them about privacy settings. Or talk to them directly about it (that’s part of that whole reducing the issue, right? Right). Hey, maybe they didn’t notice that a little bit more is showing in that picture than they thought.

And finally you can do what everybody else does with the thousand and one other pictures of pets, food, or kids that shows up in their feed.

Skip it.
...


This piece originally published on Pollychromatic on 4/29/14.


 

Equal Pay Day Controversy

So, Tuesday was equal pay day. For those of you who somehow don't know about this, it represents the day women have to work up to before they've made as much as men made the previous year.

At 77 cents to the dollar, we have to work an extra 98 days.

Anyway, if you want more information about how this came about or what it actually measures, click on the link above, because what I'm doing in this post is taking on these two bullshit questions from this post over here.

Question 1:

Do women go into lower-paying sectors because they prefer them, or because employers discriminate against them? 

I don't know about you, but I don't know too many people in general who look at themselves and think, you know what I'm worth? Very little money.

There are more women in teaching and administrative work than men, and you know what, when asking many of them, they'd say they do enjoy the work. They are where they want to be. Great! Let's pay them more.

The women workforce also has a lot more part-time workers, which apparently messes up the average? They're working part time usually because they have a family at home, right? And daycare is incredibly expensive...more expensive than college.

And having families is something that people do, don't you know. And our society is still set up in such a way where the responsibility usually falls on the woman to care for the child, and if alternate care is used, the woman actually has to be making some money. However, since she only makes 77 cents to a man's dollar, she often saves money by not going to work.

Not to mention that we are constantly saying we need more women in science, yet to be in science you need a PhD and to get a PhD plus some experience, you need to not have kids until about your mid-30s.

In fact Freeman Dyson, the world-renowned mathematical physicist who helped found quantum electrodynamics thinks academia is bunk:

"I’m very proud of not having a Ph.D. I think the Ph.D. system is an abomination. It was invented as a system for educating German professors in the 19th century, and it works well under those conditions. It’s good for a very small number of people who are going to spend their lives being professors. But it has become now a kind of union card that you have to have in order to have a job, whether it’s being a professor or other things, and it’s quite inappropriate for that. It forces people to waste years and years of their lives sort of pretending to do research for which they’re not at all well-suited. In the end, they have this piece of paper which says they’re qualified, but it really doesn’t mean anything. The Ph.D. takes far too long and discourages women from becoming scientists, which I consider a great tragedy. So I have opposed it all my life without any success at all."

Question 2:

Do women stay home with the kids because of cultural norms, or because of the way parental leave policies are set up?
I don't understand this question. I mean, both? First of all, don't kid yourself, we don't have any  parental leave in this country so there is no "way it is set up" because it does not exist. Secondly, yeah, there are definitely cultural norms still in place that need to go away because they are annoying and they make people feel bad. Not to mention that they perpetuate stereotypes that women cannot hold positions of power because "they won't give as much to the company" or women "choose not to make as much" because they "chose to have children."

Okay, well, since we're the only ones who can have children, how about you help us out and not put us through those shitty choices.

The long and short of it is that women are still struggling to be seen as a serious force in the workplace because of outmoded ideas of family, cost of childcare, and doucheheads who think if a woman chose to birth a child, she decided she didn't want to work for a lot of money so she should shut up.

We need future people, right? And to get them to the adult stage, we need to feed them. And if we're going to feed them and teach them healthy things about the world, we deserve a livable wage for doing something we have been trained in.

And if a woman works as hard as a man in her profession, she should make as much money as he does. Period.

As my friend on Facebook said:


" If you are too much of a goddamn pithy simple-minded asshole to see the structural problem with putting a tax on working women of as much as $1000/month per child, there's nothing anyone can say to talk you to a place of reason.

I never want another person coming at me about the "personal choice" of mothers to take low-paying jobs who doesn't have a solution to this nightmare of a decision-making process we put women through."

Pay equity. Because we're effing worth it. And so are our kids.

 

Things I Did Wrong Today

I do a lot of things wrong every single day, as a parent and a person. Lest you think my days ever go any different, I thought I'd break this one down for you. AHEM. Things I did wrong today:


1) I made the girls make their own beds. (Like they do every damn day. Not sure why today it made me the meanest mommy, but there you have it.)

2) I wasted my time driving 20 minutes to campus and 20 minutes back for a 20 minute meeting with a professor that gave me no insight as to how to run a focus group. This also cost me $20 for a babysitter. I guess 20 is the magic fail number. (Should have gone with a list of specific questions, for sure.)

3) While I was there, I accidentally reminded him that the assignment for the paper due today wasn't open. (SORRY GRAD CLASS, I TOTALLY DIDN'T MEAN TO DO THAT.)

4) I didn't have any red or orange Tootsie pops when I got home. The scandal.

5) I had to write an entire paper meaning that 1) I couldn't play with the girls as much as they NEEDED RIGHT THIS SECOND and 2) I couldn't let them play the Doge game.

6) I introduced them to the Doge game (technically yesterday's mistake, but damn if I didn't feel it today.)

7) My lap is too small for two five year olds.

8) I made one ice cream cone "wider" than another ice cream cone.

9) I dared to talk to another adult in the presence of the twins.

10) I handed my paper in late. (Also, it's the worst paper I've written this semester. Oh well.)

11) I gave one twin two more pieces of popcorn than the other twin. They know because they meticulously counted each five different times.

12) I forgot to defrost the dinner meat. Again.

Ordinary flowers by day...EMERGENCY DEFROST WEIGHT by night.

13) I bought the sausage that has too much gristle again.

14) I let my kids stay up until 10 p.m. watching Full House.  I did this because:

15) I posted on FB that I preferred Tangled to Frozen. Which resulted in this:

16)

 Because for fuck's sake, DON'T mess with Frozen.

Oops.

 

Let's Play a Game Called Who Can Be the Biggest Douche, AKA Tax Return Time

I'm constantly telling my twins, "look, when you give something away, it's no longer yours. It belongs to the person you gave it to, and you should be happy you were able to make them so happy." Sharing is a big deal in this house, and it's hard. I get it. You don't want to give away what you think is yours. And when I make them share, it's as if this big unfair, stupid hand is forcing them to do what they least want to do. Then they're supposed to be happy about it. (Or at least shut up about it.) But, they're living in my house, and we have a system and to live here peacefully, we all have to obey the rules of that system. Sure they can tantrum about it. But that just makes them look silly, selfish, and like babies.

With that said, I give you this:

What is it about tax return time that turns people into such jerks? Do we not understand how taxes work? If you got $500 back, and someone you know who "doesn't work as hard" gets thousands back, you realize that if they got less back, you still wouldn't get more back, right?

As much as we hate to believe it in the "It's mine, all mine, it should ALL be mine" frenzy that is tax return season, the system we have in place is there for a reason, and when we sign up to make our living in the United States, we sign up to give up a lot of our money into the system. The poor people aren't stealing your money, middle-class folks. Again we're caught up in blaming the wrong people.

If you have children, you get more money back. Because you need it. I know that people without children think they need it, too, but this is the exact reason we don't all rule ourselves in little kingdoms of one. If you want to change the tax brackets, change them up not down. More money should be put in from those at the top (sorry, dudebros, success sucks a little bit, but here's a secret: It doesn't suck nearly as much as failure), not less being taken out by the bottom.

And remember, please remember, it's not your money and poor people didn't take it from you.

The government takes it to provide a nice society for all of us, and depending on your particular needs any given year, they give you some of it back because lol, oops, we accidentally took all your money and held it hostage all year.

Here's the second part, if someone is ever lucky enough to bring in thousands of dollars in tax return money, you don't get to be the tax return police.

Repeat after me: It is not your business what other people spend their money on.

I already know what you are going to say so here:

1) It is their money. Period. I don't care if you think they "earned" it or not. You don't get to make that call. If you want to make that call, go become the head guy of the IRS or something. You don't get to decide who deserves money and who doesn't just because you're someone's neighbor or aunt or pseudo-friend.

2) It's not your business even if you (wrongly) think they're using money you personally put into the system. It is a gift. We are sharing. These people need it. You don't get to give and then cry about it without looking silly, selfish and like a baby. (see above).

Images like the ones above are inflammatory hyperbole, meant to section the middle-class against the poorer classes. And they work easily because those in different classes, even in the United States have no idea how the other people live. We live and breathe the stereotypes given those people.

Earlier in the week, I was involved in a "discussion" about this image on facebook. Many people agree with this picture and raise their hands all rah-rah style about how effed up it is that poor people get to have new phones and toys and clothes at tax return time, when they (the working middle class) are stuck with the same old iPhone model they've had for two whole years now.

I want to dissect a bit of the argument here, in hopes that you will change your mind about whether or not it is your business when a poor person buys their child a tablet or takes a trip to Disney World on their tax return money. I will use real things said in that FB thread to preserve the reality and ensure I'm not putting words in the other side's mouth. They are unchanged in spelling, grammar and sense-making.

Argument 1:

"theres some ppl down the street who have 3 kids all different dads, the wife is a waitress and the step dad is hiding on the sofa waiting on an insurance settlement so, as the 10 yr old tells me they can be rich... they got 7k back in taxes,,, the mom took pics of all the kids holding the money on a tablet and the kid showed me... and like most ghetto folk, they all got there nails and hair did, went clothes shopping and of coarse they all got new phones... instead of fixing up there shitty house.. or saving for a new car or something.."

1) Three kids, all different dads. We're talking about tax returns here. This information about paternity is unnecessary. It holds no meaning in terms of how much money the woman receives for care of her children. It serves only to strengthen the poverty-stricken, single-mom-whore stereotype, and provides a mediocre means for snap judgments. Can't keep your legs shut? Clearly don't deserve money to care for your kids. Since OBVIOUSLY they are unwanted mistakes that you made because you're stupid and wanton. Only that's not the case at all, and shut the hell up. Jesus.

2) The step-dad is hiding on the sofa waiting on an insurance settlement. Okay, first of all, how do you hide on a sofa? My kids tried that when they were little and I, like, found them every damn time. Secondly, this is rather vague and non-sensical. Like, so what? He's not allowed an insurance settlement? You think insurances are just bending over backward trying to give money to people? If he's getting a settlement, he's most likely legitimately injured in a way that even insurance companies have to acknowledge. So why won't you? I give you a D- for trying to insinuate laziness and lack of desire to work without actually knowing anything about the situation and mixing stereotype with something you think you saw or heard.

3) so, as the 10 yr old tells me they can be rich. You know what rich means to a poor ten year old? Rich means he can fucking afford school lunch, yo. Do not use a child's definition of wealthy to determine how much or little a family who "doesn't deserve it" is going to pull in from their "obviously shady insurance dealings". Secondly, any damn thing comes out of kids' mouths, dude. My kids will walk around telling strangers on the street we're poor because I wouldn't buy them a Tootsie Pop. Chill.

4) the mom took pics of all the kids holding the money on a tablet and the kid showed me... and like most ghetto folk, they all got there nails and hair did, went clothes shopping and of coarse they all got new phones... instead of fixing up there shitty house.. or saving for a new car or something. Yes, God forbid poor people get to post pictures of something nice they got. They not only don't deserve to buy it, they certainly don't get to show their friends that they're attempting to live a real-person life. And those tablets won't teach the children how to function in the technological age, those phones won't be used to upload resumes or conduct job interviews, the hair and nails certainly won't help them look presentable to a potential employer. Ever hear of "Dress for Success"? Not to mention, in order to make life-long, durable changes, people need the self-confidence to do it. No one is going to be able to succeed if they feel like a piece of shit all the time. And "ghetto folk"? "Most ghetto folk?" GTFO.

Now, let's say these people really did get $7K back in taxes. Why should they throw it into a house that is falling apart? That's a money suck. They would get literally nothing for that money if they sunk it into their house. "Saving for a new car." New cars cost at least $20K. Where are they going to get the rest of the money for that? They could buy a used one, but then that one will break and you'd still judge them for their shitty car. Oh, and if they did get a new one? You'd judge them for getting a new car. They cannot win.

Argument 2: 

"u guys obviously live surrounded by suburbia bliss and think everyone on maury is an actor... when you already have an iphone and buy the latest one..not just for you but your 10 and 11 yr old kids have a new iphone... mean while their teeth are rotting out their heads and crooked...  . . . and I have nothing against being a waitress.. i was one for 6 years... the thing is i never meet a single one that claims all their tips that's why they get more back if they have kids... its looks like they make minimum wage... come spend a day in new orleans and just people watch.. 4yr old kids in diapers playing in a garbage can and dirty street water living in a roach infested apt. w/ no a/c while dads in jail and mom is on every assistant program there is dressed to the T. herself.. hair, nails designer clothes... arguing out side w/ some man cussing up a storm calling the little kids all kinds of horrid names in front them.. idk how many times me and another neighbor called cps on those ppl.... and every time the cops came to pick up one of the parents or revive the mom for a drug overdose for the 6th damn time, they never once took the kids... i guess the system doesn't care about black kids..."

1) u guys obviously live surrounded by suburbia bliss and think everyone on maury is an actor. Not sure how sticking up for people in a low tax bracket equals suburbia bliss, to be honest.

2) mean while their teeth are rotting out their heads and crooked... Bad teeth are genetic, not necessarily linked to poverty, but caring for bad teeth takes much more time and money than an iPhone. $5,000 for braces, another $5,000 for teeth pulled, root canals, crowns, etc. Remember they probably don't have dental insurance and all that is due up front. Plus, it's a process whereby they have to get to the dentist routinely, during working hours, and spend hours getting things tightened, adjusted and fit right. Plus, it's a risk, because each time, that shit costs more money, and being poor, the tax return money will most surely be gone well before the three years of teeth repairs are done, and then how are they going to pay for it?

3)  and I have nothing against being a waitress.. i was one for 6 years... the thing is i never meet a single one that claims all their tips that's why they get more back if they have kids... its looks like they make minimum wage... That's because they do. I wouldn't claim my tips, either. Restaurants pay well below minimum wage to account for this. Don't worry about the restaurants. They're getting theirs.

4) I'm not even touching that last bit because eff you. I require citation. I've been to New Orleans, I've walked in the bad areas. Citation needed, please. What I will say is this:

You're right, the system doesn't care much about black kids. It's a huge problem and one you complaining about them getting money you don't get isn't going to fix.

Argument 3: (when told it's not her business)

"it is if your kids are at my house asking for food and other shit... your right next time i'll tell them, look your hungry go home its not my business... i see a dude screaming at a 3 year old to shut the fuck up or he'll beat the piss out of him..i'll just mind my business.. and when he kills the kid i will feel perfectly fine having not done something sooner...just like u... uh no... look you live in your bubble of selfishness and i'll watch out for the kids.."

1)  your right next time i'll tell them, look your hungry go home its not my business... You need to pick a side, middle class. Either you care about the welfare of the children or you do not. But threatening to start withholding the food you obviously begrudge the children you're giving it to because some people on the internet told you it wasn't your business what the family spent their tax money on is asinine and ludicrous and makes you look like the worst of both worlds. Either you want them to have food and money or you don't. This goes triple for the assault situation. You're mixing your arguments and trying to muddy the point and it does not behoove you. If the people are bad off, and you're that mad about it...help them.

This reply on the thread says it better than I can:

"If you're going to extend a helping hand to kids that's great but if you can't do it without being a judgmental asshole about their parents then you're really not doing them any favors, you're just doing what you can to make yourself feel better for being a judgy douche. I was one of those kids, and I know how it feels to have someone "helping," me while judging the fuck out of my mother for our shitty station in life and guess what, I HATED people like you growing up, even if they were trying to "help" us. You know what it did? It made me not want to ask anyone for help. Ever. Because I knew that they were going to judge us."

AND NOW FOR THE GRAND FINALE.

After going back and forth over this for a long chunk of primo Oscar-watching time, the final comment ends with this:

i have a 100$ phone.. a cracked nook and drink wine out the box... but my house is paid for.. no mortgage..and so are both my cars... so there is a bit of info for you all to make assumptions about... have fun with it..

All of that judgement, that hate, that vitriol, all of that incredibly hardened and stereotyping behavior...it all comes down to her being angry that she has to live with a $100 phone, a cracked nook and boxed wine. And her husband works 6 days a week, 12 hours a day for them to be able to afford even that, according to her.

And that's it. That's it right there. That's what's wrong with everything. The middle class has nothing, gets nothing, is nothing. And someone, somewhere, convinced them to blame it on the poor people.

You are fighting the wrong enemy. Look up, not down. It's the extremity of the capitalist society that has whittled away the last shreds of middle-class dignity. It's the exorbitant tax breaks and ridiculous tax write offs of the rich that contribute to this, not the attempt to dole out what is left fairly, in accordance to tax bracket and income.

Your boxed wine isn't your neighbor's fault, dude. It's your husband's boss's boss's. Let's start there. Can we go back to the beginning of it all and just start there?