Another Reason I Am A Horrible Person
On this day, physician in 1920, sandwich production was set back nearly one hundred years.
On this day, physician in 1920, sandwich production was set back nearly one hundred years.
© 1995-2016 Jonathan Schwarz
Website Design and Maintenance by
GeekArtist Web Solutions, LLC
Hosted by GeekArtist Web Solutions, LLC
Powered by WordPress
Follow
August 18th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
And?
Reply
Nate the great reply on August 18th, 2011 4:15 pm:
Sorry, I hit the submit button before I was done. I don’t see anything besides the one sentence.
Reply
August 18th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
8/18/1920 – The day Women’s Suffrage was enacted into law.
Reply
August 18th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
yet another useless factoid brought to you by skippyslist.com thanks skippy
Reply
derko5 reply on August 18th, 2011 9:21 pm:
useless eh? You do know that Susan B. Anthony is gonna come back as a zombie just to beat you to death with a rolling pin.
Reply
August 18th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
If zombie Susan B. Anthony is going to come back to beat Skippy to death with a rolling pin, all he has to do is say, “So where’s my sandwich?”
Hey, someone’s gotta keep Skippy company in Hell…
Reply
AdoAnnie reply on August 22nd, 2011 12:58 am:
Dorf, not hit Skippy with a rolling pin, hit Barry, he’s the one who typed it ;-)
Reply
August 19th, 2011 at 4:51 am
Awww, she’s a feminist.. how cute! <3
Personally, I don't believe in equal rights. Equal opportunities, sure.. but equal treatment? Hell no. I don't want parking tickets, I don't want to have to carry heavy things, I don't want to have to do half the things men feel necessary to do for me.. And if that means I make a sandwich while he watches football, that's fine.. because I was probably making myself one as I was going to into the other room to watch hockey. :P
Reply
SKD reply on August 19th, 2011 2:24 pm:
marry me? :P
Reply
Shadowydreamer reply on August 19th, 2011 2:34 pm:
Only if you have an appreciation for loud music, video games and night owls.
Reply
SKD reply on August 19th, 2011 2:37 pm:
Have earplugs, consoles and PC, and I don’t sleep much
Shadowydreamer reply on August 19th, 2011 2:46 pm:
Oh, well, in that case.. sure!
Reply
skippy reply on August 21st, 2011 11:40 pm:
I claim primae noctis.
Shadowydreamer reply on August 22nd, 2011 1:00 am:
That’d require a TARDIS at the very least..
August 19th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Wow…LOL
Reply
Druchii reply on August 21st, 2011 4:52 pm:
I really am interested where you where going with this
Reply
Greyryder reply on August 21st, 2011 7:40 pm:
To Hell, probably. But he seems to be enjoying the ride. lol
Reply
Shadowydreamer reply on August 21st, 2011 8:46 pm:
..and we’ll all be going along with him.. :)
I spend so much time in my handbasket its like a second home to me. ;)
ltc_insane reply on August 26th, 2011 10:06 am:
What other people call hell … we call home ? :P
August 22nd, 2011 at 12:54 am
I believe the meme of the day, 1920 that is, that we would ALL be going to hell in a basket now that women had the vote. We would obviously vote for the cutest man on the roster no matter what his politics.
I think Warren G. Harding put that one to bed, a little stern for my taste.
Oh, Shadowy, we share common feminist traits, “loud music, video games and night owls.” Sandwich making is not on my list, but I can be persuaded to put a pizza in the oven if someone else buys the beer.
The thing I miss, even though I really enjoy video games, is cards. Man, we used to play Spades and Canasta like there was no Reveille.
Reply
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:40 am
Annie’s Rant
Personally I do believe in equal rights and equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.
Equal rights – as a human individual I should have the same citizen rights as any other individual, the right to pursue all or any form of legal activity regardless of age, gender, color, race, religion, national origin, disability or gender orientation – to vote, drive a car, pursue employment, marry the person I love, buy a house or property, invest, go about my daily business without fear of harassment. And the right to pursue the vast opportunities in life.
Equal Opportunity – the right to give it a try. Succeeding is up to me, but the opportunity should be open without prejudice to the above list. So what if I am one legged, don’t tell me I can’t even try out for the basketball team, my prosthetic leg just might surprise you with the amount of hang time it gives me. Don’t tell me that I can’t apply for a job opening just because I am old, female or don’t believe in your god. The one that used to get to me, really broke a rage, “We can’t hire you because you are too overqualified.” What? You want an idiot to do this job? I can be an idiot, just let me try.
Equal treatment under the law – which the current Supreme Court has knocked the wind out of. It is obvious even to a blind dog that Wally-World discriminates against women in the matter of promotions and pay scale, but the Supremes are now in the pocket of big business so we are shoved back by a minimum 50 yrs of hard fought for ground.
At least there will always be sandwich making.
Reply
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:54 am
Annie, do you know what the Supreme Court actually said? I’m guessing not.
The case before the court was *not* a sex discrimination case, it was a civil procedure case. Specifically, it was a question of what defines a “class” for the purposes of class-action litigation. Class action procedures are designed to streamline processes and allow cases involving substantially similar plaintiffs with a common nucleus of operative fact (a phrase regularly found in civil procedure jurisprudence). The relevant rule is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, from which I quote part A:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
All four prongs must be met. The Supreme Court found that subparts (2) and (3) were not sufficiently common between all members of the proposed class, mostly because of the extraordinarly broad (pardon the pun) definition of the proposed class (“women who worked at Wal*Mart”).
The court did nothing to say the women couldn’t sue; it didn’t even prevent smaller groups from forming smaller, more focused classes. It simply said that having two X-chromosomes and working at Wal*mart was too non-specific to meet the legal definition of a class.
Reply
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:29 pm
I always thought the big national slide downward started in 1920. Since women’s suffrage the political class has been pandering to the women’s vote and mostly only the girly-men candidates get elected, like running for homecoming king/queen.
I also think the the problem with modern society is that due to the advances of pre/post-natal and pediatric medicine, to many of the weak are living through infancy and watering down the gene pool.
If I’m going to hell, I might as well go after a good thrashing.
Reply
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“It simply said that having two X-chromosomes and working at Wal*mart was too non-specific to meet the legal definition of a class.”
That is exactly the “class” that WallyWorld discriminates against. So the Supremes are saying that we are too big and homogenous to file suit? I say “we” loosely as I don’t work for Wally, but possessing two X chromosomes makes for deep familiarity with the problem.
It would be nice someday to see all the XX ‘somes individuals walk out one day and persuade all their XX and even XY compatriots to not shop that day. It would disrupt world markets, China would be screaming at Wally to fix the problem.
Reply
AdoAnnie reply on August 22nd, 2011 7:45 pm:
Read: non homogenous
Reply
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
PS. Matt, “girly-men”? Are you talking about presidents or local politicians? What about FDR, Truman, Ike, ok, maybe JFK was cute, but Lyndon Johnson??? Girly-men? Nixon? I don’t think so.
On the second opinion, I, also accept a thrashing for agreement, but take one look into the eyes of your own child and tell him/her that for the good of the gene pool you are going to let them die before they reach puberty.
Reply
Matt reply on August 22nd, 2011 8:15 pm:
Ma’am,
Could just be I’m yanking your chain.
I refer girly-men mostly to recent politicians. They care more about appearance, emotion and popularity than substance.
I have mourned with my best freind as she buried her child, and it sucks. I have mourned as I buried my own child and nothing sucks or hurts worse.
Reply
AdoAnnie reply on August 22nd, 2011 9:09 pm:
Then I will graciously allow my chain to be rattled and yanked.
My deepest darkest sympathy is with you and your loved ones. No parent should have to outlive a child. I can’t begin to imagine the pain.
“They care more about appearance, emotion and popularity than substance”
It’s that TV Metrosexual thing. Have to look good for the camera.
Reply
August 23rd, 2011 at 6:50 pm
While I do believe that women should have all the opportunities that men have, I also think that it’s not fair that now most of us HAVE to work just to make ends meet. I kind of resent that society now expects every family to have two working adults in it, and thus it is very difficult to make it on a single income.
Also, getting only 12 unpaid weeks off after the birth of a baby is awful, we lag behind the ENTIRE civilized world (and a decent portion of the un-civilized world) in our treatment of new mothers.
I guess my point is, I am for equal opportunities, but I agree with the poster above who said she didn’t want equal treatment.
Reply
Shadowydreamer reply on August 23rd, 2011 7:01 pm:
We get 35 weeks parental leave (BOTH parents) in Canada.. and that’s on top of the 15 weeks maternity leave. And parental leave is applicable to adoptive parents of a new born, not just “natural born” parents.
Socialism has its perks.
Reply
ltc_insane reply on August 26th, 2011 10:07 am:
Socialism is not a bad thing when it is used in moderation. ;)
Reply
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
I think you are (both partners in a two parent household) being mistreated horrendously that both of you have to work to make ends meet. I think that is a crucial failing of our economy and the current American business model (all for me the CEO and none for you the peon employee). Equal treatment would mean that either one of you should have the right to choose to stay home to raise your children. Equal treatment would mean that both of you have paid new born/adoptive leave like the rest of the civilized world. I agree with Shadowy up there, socialism has its perks. Equal treatment would mean that motherhood would be treated as the hard working job that it is and be respected for the economic boon that it is to the nation’s GDP. ALL MOTHERS ARE WORKING MOTHERS and deserve the equal treatment of having their life’s work respected as equal to any other employed individual. Without equal treatment we are still just housewives listed under our husband’s name with no right to individual status.
Alright, I’m off my deeply feminist soap box. And I’m moving to Canada.
Reply