mayonnaisejane said: The conditions described in the video are those of a full time parent. If they were not a full time parent they’d have breaks, sleep, etc.
The conditions described are of a dutiful parent. They say “Moms,” not “stay-at-home Moms.” That you’re applying it solely and specifically to stay-at-home Moms, particularly the parts about lack of sleep and breaks, might say more about your value judgment on stay-at-home versus working mothers than my attitudes on the matter. Especially since you’re the one making the assumption any of this is about stay-at-home Moms and intimating that stay-at-home Moms are the only ones that put in the time, lack of sleep, etcetera.
The long and the short of it, though, is that the video’s saying “Moms.” That’s it.
More importantly though this is kinda reminiscent of yesterday, when you said something smarmy about how I should have known something since I’m a journalist, and when I said I actually wasn’t a journalist, your response was “ORLY?”
As if I wouldn’t know whether or not I was a journalist.
When I further clarified (my exact words were “…yeah…”) you replied that you assumed I was because I blogged for the TU (true but it was a lifestyle blog) and worked for local television stations (I did not and never did).
And again, here, you’re working on assumptions and a reach, then overreacting with condescending remarks, then telling ME to knock it off (it being the thing I didn’t actually say and attitude I don’t hold), then after I clarify, inferring that I don’t know what I’m saying or what I do for a living.
mayonnaisejane said: Well given that the video makes it pretty clear it’s about actual good active stay at home parenting, your comments on how people should stop patting themselves on the back “just” for having procreated come off pretty devaluing.
Again, bolded emphasis mine.
And again, incorrect. It’s about “Moms,” not stay-at-home. They make it clear it’s about ALL Moms in a blanket statement. That’s the whole point and exactly why it’s so patronizing.
"Stay-at-home" is not stated or inferred in that video or in my post. That’s a qualifier and interpretation you’ve applied to it. But it’s simply not there and it never was.
mayonnaisejane said: Ok, yes if these aren’t actors they screwed with unemployed people and that’s not ok. But lets not continue to devalue the work of active stay-at-home parents. We have enough people saying parenting isn’t work. Knock it off.
Whoa! That’s not even what I said!
(Bolded emphasis mine - I dare you to find where I devalued the work of active stay-at-home parents. Quite the contrary.)
Another local tweeter weirdo that I had an unfavorable interaction with at one point, was also arrested a couple months ago.
First, the twitter offense that led to her blocking me: me being a total dick about her Justin Bieber obession. I think she made one of those “Bieber is REAL music” statements, which I just couldn’t resist entering a discourse about. I wasn’t completely trolling her, but I was being a total dick about it. Also, I should mention, she was my age, at the time, late 20’s, early 30’s. And she had “Belieber” in her bio.
A few months ago, she was arrested, at age 31, for having sex with a 15 year old student she was teaching.
PSA: people that are weirdos on twitter are also weirdos in real life.
Questions have arisen about whether a quotation from a translation of Virgil’s “Aeneid” about two warriors’ deaths is appropriate for the National September 11 Memorial Museum.
The preview text is a bit misleading as well. There are no questions. In the context of the original quote, it’s undoubtedly inappropriate.
The short version: this isn’t some ode to victims of savagery or brave soldiers heading into battle. It’s spoken to the perpetrators of a heinous crime in advance of their punishment. The context, then, isn’t that they won’t be forgotten for their sacrifices. It’s that their actions were so heinous that they will be defined by them, and their punishment will reflect that.
Sometimes, just sometimes, sentiment is enough. Other times, context matters.
It matters here because thousands of people were murdered by zealots. Zealots that were motivated a combination of historical ignorance and contemporary malice.
In that sense, there are few quotes that could be less appropriate.
My hope was that I’d never have to address the legitimacy or even the existence of “Angela Cheng.” But I got a call today from a BuzzFeed editor who led me to believe that they were moving ahead with a story about “Cheng” that included me, with or without my participation. I always refrained from…
A friend of mine (boxing columnist and analyst Michael Rivest) posted this quote on Facebook:
We can’t equate democracy with Christianity because the largest democracy on earth is India, which is primarily Hindu. The third largest democracy is Indonesia, which is Islamic. Democracy and freedom are not dependent on Christian beliefs. - Jimmy Carter
This is true. Particularly since those who laid the foundations for our modern interpretation of democracy - including and preceding the framers of the constitution - were aggressively agnostic and opposed to many of the precepts of organized religion.
You’ll notice I didn’t use the term “founding fathers.” It makes me cringe. I find it patriarchal. It deified ordinary men whose very humanity is key to understanding what they did, why they did it, and how that makes it all the more remarkable.
The industry giant’s latest venture is a shameless, mercenary attempt to exploit inexperienced writers
This is something I made the mistake of doing for the Times Union in Albany, and I still regret it to this day. Especially now that I’m a paid, professional writer who’s written for everything from web content to television.
If you’re an inexperienced writer: write, hustle, write, put your name out there, write, make connections, and oh yeah, WRITE. But don’t work for free. If you do, you’re a scab.