Ann Romney/Hilary Rosen

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ibram

The entire controversy here is that using the word "worked" to be a synonym "employed" is... not allowed when talking about mothers?
Please, somebody, try to explain this one to me.

It's like when a gay person says "that's so gay" as an insult, or a feminist calls someone a bitch or pussy, due to habits acquired from pervasive phrases in society. Opposition will glory in it, and supporters will have to decry it.

"Not worked a day in [his/her] life" is a common phrase, and it's unfortunate that it doesn't take into account the worked=employment vs. worked=labored. Though, it is often used in a relative way, and a -for example- coal miner could use it with respect to an office worker.

I do wonder whether anyone who was outraged over Rosen's treatment of Romney ever thought of "welfare queens" as lazy people who should be forced to get a job, or if being a mother is only work if you're lucky enough to have a husband who can support you.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I do wonder whether anyone who was outraged over Rosen's treatment of Romney ever thought of "welfare queens" as lazy people who should be forced to get a job, or if being a mother is only work if you're lucky enough to have a husband who can support you.

This this this.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

...being a mother is only work if you're lucky enough to have a husband who can support you.

I don't want to split hairs, but, I do take objection to the use of the word "lucky" as relates to one's position in life. The implication, whether intended or not, is that results don't account for hard effort and smart choices. One might even say that this is a central issue of perception that divides a certain two quasi-classes of people (not true "classes" but those who simply subscribe to differing schools of thought...and obvioulsy not two "discrete" sets of people either).

I can say I have personally observed that this can be a misstep in thinking which has cascading effects.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

I don't want to split hairs, but, I do take objection to the use of the word "lucky" as relates to one's position in life. The implication, whether intended or not, is that results don't account for hard effort and smart choices.

The difference luck makes is whether you need to make unusually good choices to do well versus unusually bad choices to do poorly.

I was very lucky in many ways. Given the advantages that luck has provided me, I would have had to make unusually bad choices to end up destitute.

The reverse is true for many.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The difference luck makes is whether you need to make unusually good choices to do well versus unusually bad choices to do poorly.

I was very lucky in many ways. Given the advantages that luck has provided me, I would have had to make unusually bad choices to end up destitute.

The reverse is true for many.

Okay, excellent distinction(s).



Sundae, I was just responding to a subject that was already on the table. I didn't intend to disrespect your grandfather. I actually don't think I mentioned what you're adressing, i.e. a value judgment conflating material possessions and human worth, but if I did it wasn't intentional. And I don't subscribe to that. One of my closest friends is a guy who makes just enough money to get by. We have beers together and agree on almost everything. He doesn't have alot, but he pays his own way and doesn't ask for anything from anybody.