Who knew 5 days could put a girl so far behind?
Your missing links from the weekend: poem of the week and John’s Sunday column
We’re written up in Esquire today:
Nearly fifteen years after the Clintons tackled America’s health care crisis, a new group called Health Care for America Now may just tip the tide, scaring the bejeezus out of Conservatives.
Read the whole thing here, including this:
“They’re obviously going to fight tooth and nail,” says Jacki Schechner, the spokeswoman for HCAN. “Even as they say they’re coming to the table now, they have a real clear vision of what they want to see that reform look like, and that protects their bottom line.”
Chris has got another piece in Politico today talking about us versus single-payer, and my boss sums it up perfectly:
Kirsch added that the attacks by single-payer advocates are aimed in the wrong direction and “are more of a distraction than anything else.”
“It’s great for them to go out and advocate for single-payer, but we think they’re misplacing their energies by attacking us,” Kirsch said. “They should be focusing their energies on those that don’t want to see any public health insurance plan and don’t want to see stringent regulations of the private insurance industry.”
And finally, just for fun, I found this in a circular on Sunday:
My First Male Chauvinist Boyfriend sold separately.
I have to disagree with part of this post, only because, frankly, I think it’s ridiculous to imply that there’s anything inherently wrong with a little girl wanting to emulate her mom, or if her mom works, with the girl being drawn to domestic tasks. I suspect that it was probably tongue-in-cheek on your part, but I resent all the cultural pressure that tells women not to be content with the traditional roles of motherhood. I don’t think the problem is with women choosing the domestic sphere; I think the problem is with men (and some women) not understanding that it’s a choice on the part of the woman, not something she has to do or something she does because she’s incapable of doing “a man’s work.”
Anyway, let’s fix health care, but let’s not disparage women who enjoy domesticity or who encourage their children to do so.
Well, I’m with you Jax. I find that ad completely offensive, and I loved your comment — laughed out loud when I read it.
Thanks.
Besides the fact that I think fake household appliances are generally lousy gifts for kids, what would have been the harm in putting a little boy in that picture?
So only girls iron and do laundry?
Not in my house.
Also, I don’t believe motherhood and domestic chores are intrinsically linked. Heck, you birth a child, and you should get a free pass not to have to do chores if you so choose.
The best part about the day and age in which we live is that a woman can choose to do or not do anything she darn well pleases. And if a woman decides to pursue the traditional role of housewife (again, mother and housewife are not necessarily the same thing in my book), then I’m all for it.
But marketing traditional domestic chores as toys for girls (and not boys) perpetuates a gender stereotype that’s better off left unadvertised.
You’re overreacting.
The little girl in the ad is obviously Hispanic, which means that the toys she’s playing with actually qualify as career training.
Chez, I made the mistake of reading this in a library, and you made me laugh out loud.
I still say there’s nothing wrong with the toy. I’ve never in my life known a boy or man who aspired to be a househusband (though I know plenty of men who share the chores around the house). I do know plenty of girls and women who aspire to be housewives and stay at home with their kids, at least when the kids are young. If they’d put a boy on the box, they’d have alienated their target demographic and the product would have failed.
It is a lousy toy, though, so it will probably fail anyway.