The problem with this whole thread is that it frames the role of the homemaker in a negative light - that role reversal is something to avoid. That somehow the spouse who stays home is a lesser person than the breadwinner. It's not a good stereotype to keep up - because the social pressure will tend to push the good people (like the second friend in your example) back out to work and leave kids to be raised by school and TV with less involvement from the parents.
You're exactly right - unlike AC's assertion, I don't see any backlash in feminism against role reversal in the home. Hell, gender equality is when we stop calling it "role reversal" and making assumptions on who does what. Who earns the income and who maintains the household should entirely depend on the people involved.
Lastly, I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible for two-income households to spend enough time with their kids, just takes a great deal more effort and it saddens me that it's become the norm.
...prolly because Zynga hasn't been shown to consistently disregard industry safety standards for coffee temperature in order to cut costs. But of course you knew that already and will surely point out the details I just got wrong:)
...unless you enjoy the MMO. Can you get more hours per dollar out of standalone games? Maybe... But fifteen bucks a month for something you enjoy isn't a huge deal (and I don't even play anymore). I've spent far more money on my "active" hobbies than I ever did on WoW and have gotten far fewer hours of enjoyment out of them. Does that mean they're rip offs too? The value of money is more or less fixed, but the value of what you buy with that money can be all over the place.
Don't you know there are free-to-play soccer leagues online? You only need to pay if you want to put good players on your team, and you never need to leave the basement!
While we're all proudly arguing over semantics, we're skipping the OP's original, valid, point that these games (or toys or video entertainment programs or whatever you want to call them), simply stated, suck. They are simply a "put in x time, get y reward" or "pay x and get y reward faster." All this without the challenge (or creative aspects) of a game like Sim City - where the player's enjoyment is in the gameplay itself, rather than some arbitrary reward.
Just because you're using different terminology doesn't mean you and parent poster aren't saying the exact same thing.
In all the ranting and raving on this topic, this is the most constructive response I've seen. If somebody (even a child) breaks something through their own actions (REPEATEDLY) - you don't just fix it and give it back to them each time. You teach them to fix it or not to break it in the first place. You don't fix the computer, you give a lesson while they fix the computer.
If a kid is old enough to browse the internet unsupervised, then he can learn to deal with malware.
If there's anything I've learned from Stargate SG1 - it's that the military is far more competent than civilian organizations when it comes to handling advanced weaponry and technology.
Well, 18 people killed by dogs this year in the US alone according to the wikis. Sure, not quite as many as in this tragedy - but that's just one year.
My point is - just because you don't understand something doesn't mean nobody does. Sure, let's be sane about gun control - but that doesn't mean no guns for anybody.
disclosure: I have a dog, car, and play video games. I do not own a gun.
This is right on - we only ever think that there must be a perfect solution to the problem that won't have any unforeseen consequences. We want "set it and forget it" laws. Fortunately (or unfortunately), reality is far more fluid - particularly in law and politics. This is exactly why we have the legal and political systems we have: to provide the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. Sure, people will take advantage of law and politics - but as they say - eternal vigilance is the price we pay to live in a democratic society.
Technically everything leading up, causing, and continuing the recession was approved by the Democrats.
Not to nitpick too terribly much, but the recession was in the works well before 2007. Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans, and everybody believes they're right and the other guy is wrong because we can't handle the thought that we might have had a part to play.
It's not green energy that's the problem - it's tax dollars going to subsidize any industry. If your product is not cost effective, government money is not going to change that.
Simmah down now - I didn't make any assumptions in my post as to your rideredness (as you so quickly did about mine...). I'm simply saying that - as you should be *well* aware of - motorcycles do not register as readily in the eyes of drivers as other cars do. We're smaller and they aren't as used to seeing us on the roads. Regardless of how skilled or responsible a rider you are, there is still that chance you won't be able to avoid that oncoming car turning left in front of you or you won't see that car back there merging onto the freeway and across all of the traffic lanes.
I'm not trying to blame cars for all motorcycle accidents. I can't argue that cars kill motorcyclists more often than motorcyclists kill themselves because it's simply not true. All I'm saying is a driver is more likely to notice another car than they would a motorcycle.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this whole thread is that it frames the role of the homemaker in a negative light - that role reversal is something to avoid. That somehow the spouse who stays home is a lesser person than the breadwinner. It's not a good stereotype to keep up - because the social pressure will tend to push the good people (like the second friend in your example) back out to work and leave kids to be raised by school and TV with less involvement from the parents.
You're exactly right - unlike AC's assertion, I don't see any backlash in feminism against role reversal in the home. Hell, gender equality is when we stop calling it "role reversal" and making assumptions on who does what. Who earns the income and who maintains the household should entirely depend on the people involved.
Lastly, I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible for two-income households to spend enough time with their kids, just takes a great deal more effort and it saddens me that it's become the norm.
I didn't skip anything... my point was that you guys aren't in disagreement, regardless of how hard you try.
...prolly because Zynga hasn't been shown to consistently disregard industry safety standards for coffee temperature in order to cut costs. But of course you knew that already and will surely point out the details I just got wrong :)
Shut your face, man! That was different!
...unless you enjoy the MMO. Can you get more hours per dollar out of standalone games? Maybe... But fifteen bucks a month for something you enjoy isn't a huge deal (and I don't even play anymore). I've spent far more money on my "active" hobbies than I ever did on WoW and have gotten far fewer hours of enjoyment out of them. Does that mean they're rip offs too? The value of money is more or less fixed, but the value of what you buy with that money can be all over the place.
Not gonna lie, this story brought a single tear of happiness to my eye.
Don't you know there are free-to-play soccer leagues online? You only need to pay if you want to put good players on your team, and you never need to leave the basement!
While we're all proudly arguing over semantics, we're skipping the OP's original, valid, point that these games (or toys or video entertainment programs or whatever you want to call them), simply stated, suck. They are simply a "put in x time, get y reward" or "pay x and get y reward faster." All this without the challenge (or creative aspects) of a game like Sim City - where the player's enjoyment is in the gameplay itself, rather than some arbitrary reward.
Just because you're using different terminology doesn't mean you and parent poster aren't saying the exact same thing.
If a kid is old enough to browse the internet unsupervised, then he can learn to deal with malware.
There's the key right there.
If there's anything I've learned from Stargate SG1 - it's that the military is far more competent than civilian organizations when it comes to handling advanced weaponry and technology.
Well, 18 people killed by dogs this year in the US alone according to the wikis. Sure, not quite as many as in this tragedy - but that's just one year.
My point is - just because you don't understand something doesn't mean nobody does. Sure, let's be sane about gun control - but that doesn't mean no guns for anybody.
disclosure: I have a dog, car, and play video games. I do not own a gun.
Video games have no use but to waste time. Nobody has any use for a video game. Not a computer nerd, not a teenager, not anyone.
Cars have no use but to cause accidents and pollution. No one has any use for a car. Not a commuter, not a delivery man, not anyone.
Dogs have no use but to bite and shit. No one has any use for a dog. Not a deaf person, not a police officer, not anyone.
C'mon man, *think* before you post.
And what Anonymous des is flat-out illegal.
Well, when you've exhausted the legal means to escape your tormentor, what is left to you?
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!
This is right on - we only ever think that there must be a perfect solution to the problem that won't have any unforeseen consequences. We want "set it and forget it" laws. Fortunately (or unfortunately), reality is far more fluid - particularly in law and politics. This is exactly why we have the legal and political systems we have: to provide the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. Sure, people will take advantage of law and politics - but as they say - eternal vigilance is the price we pay to live in a democratic society.
...I might be, but then again I'm not a nice person.
You don't understand, man! Somebody said something in a way we don't like! We will have blood!!!!
Technically everything leading up, causing, and continuing the recession was approved by the Democrats.
Not to nitpick too terribly much, but the recession was in the works well before 2007. Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans, and everybody believes they're right and the other guy is wrong because we can't handle the thought that we might have had a part to play.
It's not green energy that's the problem - it's tax dollars going to subsidize any industry. If your product is not cost effective, government money is not going to change that.
Don't forget - many museums contain a great deal of items on loan from private collections.
...proper cubicles. God I hate the fact that I had to read that twice to figure out what I didn't like about the term.
My answer: Because if I stay home, I likely would just be goofing off...
Well, one difference is that Apple made Newtons. Quicktakes were just re-branded Fuji digital cameras.
I suppose this isn't really germane to this conversation, but I wanted to point it out somewhere...
Well, it only takes one real success to make a company - Apple seems to have done quite well...
Simmah down now - I didn't make any assumptions in my post as to your rideredness (as you so quickly did about mine...). I'm simply saying that - as you should be *well* aware of - motorcycles do not register as readily in the eyes of drivers as other cars do. We're smaller and they aren't as used to seeing us on the roads. Regardless of how skilled or responsible a rider you are, there is still that chance you won't be able to avoid that oncoming car turning left in front of you or you won't see that car back there merging onto the freeway and across all of the traffic lanes.
I'm not trying to blame cars for all motorcycle accidents. I can't argue that cars kill motorcyclists more often than motorcyclists kill themselves because it's simply not true. All I'm saying is a driver is more likely to notice another car than they would a motorcycle.