Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Jen K
Recent Activity
-
Jen commented on the article |Why Al, it is the truth. Society is set up by it's people, and this society has homeless poeple. Of course all societies have homeless people.....
It is not the fault of the rich conservative evil male b*stards, but of all of us. The voting majority in the country are women, are the poor and middle class. Looking back at 2008 tax records, Bush and Cheney gave more of a percentage of their income to charity than Obama and Biden. Things are not always as nice, simple and black and white as we would like. You and I are just as responsible for the creation of this society as anyone. Certainly the rich white males have their share of culpability, but they are not alone.
So why is it stupid empty criticism when aimed out at all of us but acceptable criticism when aimed at an institution which helped the homeless for centuries and continues to do so, simply without state funding? The church gives more money to the poor than all the modern liberals put together, so why are they the bad guys?
If you were banned from doing gay marriages if you accepted state money, you would refuse the money too, even if that meant having to cut back your services. And the state would give that money to another agency, no services would be lost, and this misleading article would never have been written.
So why is it so horrible when the church does the same exact thing??
-
Jen commented on the article |
The only problem is the interviewer asked the wrong question. The church is NOT cutting off services to the homeless. They are not accepting gov. funding and now will have to cut all services due to lack of money.They will continue to provide all the services their income will allow. The gov is welcome to give that money to another not for profit org. which can continue the work.
The whole argument here and on the youtube video is a red herring, since the premise of the argument isn't even accurate.
-
Jen commented on the article |I agree. But when it comes to defending men's inequalities feminism has been curiously mute. Apparently the definition of equal is one side gets at least 50% of everything and the other side doesn't matter.
The issue I have is that in China, while not excusable, it is understandable that parents who are only allowed to have one child and do not have the retirement benefits we have here would choose the child which will be obligated to care for them in their old age.
In the US women are choosing girls because they think they are inherently better. Women can have as many children as they choose, and they have no reason other than personal taste to choose one over the other. Either women are controlling the decision of gender in their family or the fathers have been brainwashed to think that girls are more valuable as well. Both are plausable. One would think that just having a healthy child would be the goal.
The only saving grace to the US situation is that we have not yet begun the mass murder of boys, although little boys are more likely to be abused and murdered. Of course if the US ever went to a one child policy, it would happen.
The other curiosity is that there is no mainstream outrage over choosing a gender and aborting babies due to gender. We condemn China for the practice but when it happens here we are strangely silent or compassionate for the parents. Shouldn't we be trying to nip this in the bud rather than encourage it? How is it we condemn the practice elsewhere then write articles in mainstream media explaining it away here.
-
Jen commented on the article |
Selective service is one way men are discriminated against. Men are seen as evil, as batterers, as idiots, even though only a minority are these things. Men are still held to strict social gender norms while women are not. Men are told by both other men and women that they must act, dress, work, and play in certain ways or be demeaned as less of a man. Men are routinely struck, kicked, beaten and otherwise abused as comedy in mainstream media. Schools are designed for girls and run by women, making boys outsiders for the first decade or two of their lives. Women are more likely to go to college and get a degree, while men are far more likely to commit suicide or be a victim of a homocide or assault. Sorry, this article is the natural consequence of devaluing one gender for decades. In China boys are valued not because they are better but because they are their parent's retirement funds. Girls are more valued here because it is believed they are better. Which is the worse practice?
Jen
-
Jen commented on the article |
People of all backgrounds get beat up for being who they are, but it rarely is systemic nor condoned by society. Most of these occur as kids, and kids are cruel. Nothing done on a legislative level will touch that.
It is socially unacceptable by the majority of people to beat up or kill someone for being gay, AND it is against the law and enforced. During the civil right's era it was not only socially acceptable to do so to blacks, it was for all intents legal, since there was never any consequences for doing so. That is a HUGE difference. There was national outrage, both by liberals and conservatives alike, when the incedences you reference occured, as there should be.
-
Jen commented on the article |
People of all backgrounds get beat up for being who they are, but it rarely is systemic nor condoned by society. Most of these occur as kids, and kids are cruel. Nothing done on a legislative level will touch that.
It is socially unacceptable by the majority of people to beat up or kill someone for being gay, AND it is against the law and enforced. During the civil right's era it was not only socially acceptable to do so to blacks, it was for all intents legal, since there was never any consequences for doing so. That is a HUGE difference. There was national outrage, both by liberals and conservatives alike, when the incedences you reference occured, as there should be.
-
Jen commented on the article |
You are absolutely right. Your post brings back memories of my own teen years, where I was hounded, beaten up, and likewise berrated because I liked to hang out with the guys and thus was called 'slut', 'whore' etc even when I was a virgin. People can be so cruel, and it is indeed just human nature at it's worst.
It is wrong to behave like that. It is wrong to treat people like that.
-
Jen commented on the article |
You are absolutely right. Your post brings back memories of my own teen years, where I was hounded, beaten up, and likewise berrated because I liked to hang out with the guys and thus was called 'slut', 'whore' etc even when I was a virgin. People can be so cruel, and it is indeed just human nature at it's worst.
It is wrong to behave like that. It is wrong to treat people like that.
-
Jen commented on the article |
Al, you are being incredibly intolerant. You have no idea what black people during the civil rights movement went through, and this is a tactic I find reprehensible that the gay community feels they can use without merit. It is already against the law to discriminate against gays for being gay. While a few people disregard this, those people are accountable to the law for it. Black people in this country were denied rights based on the color of their skin alone. They were denied the ability to attend schools, to work, to have basic freedoms, and had NO recourse when these things happened. In fact they were beaten, jailed and worse for protesting.
The gay lifestyle, the choice people make, is what is up for discussion. From what I can see here and in my experience with many people, no one expects you to go back into the closet. You are not being beaten, hung, burned, or any of the other things which happened to blacks on a regular basis. You have the right and are encouraged to protest, to boycott, to rally, to build businesses soley to promote your cause. To pretend you are facing the kind of discrimination black people went through is playing the victim in a very misleading way.
If you would like to discuss gay marriage, then do so. But that is not what you want. You want me and anyone else who does not kowtow to your point of view to "stop". That is not a discussion, that is not conversation. If you do not want to discuss it, what are you doing on a discussion board? If you just want to have your point of view, why call this change? Why not only allow you and your group to post here, where you all agree? You can ban anyone who doesn't agree with you. Would that make you feel better?
The stupid thing is this whole discussion is based on a huge misunderstanding due to a misleading headline.
-
Jen commented on the article |
Good point Kevin.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits