PJM has an interesting article on Desperate (Green) Housewives:
Read the whole thing.
The New York Times has turned environmentally conscious mothers into their latest target of derision. Unfair, says Laura McKenna. If you’re going to mock, why not make fun of the whole green movement?
Read the whole thing.
posted by Helen at 3:28 PM
17 Comments:
I read the Times article, all it did was explain how SAHMs are now getting concerned about the environment and applying a green lifestyle to their homes. I'm not offended at all and think it is a good thing.
"If you’re going to mock, why not make fun of the whole green movement?"
The Times, that wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, mock one of the liberal-left's most cherished Causes? I've read science fiction that requires less suspension of disbelief!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I read the article and didn't detect a mocking attitude...a bunch of women getting hysterical about environmental issues, perhaps, but no mocking tone to the article.
My favorite part:
The matter of toys is particularly thorny. At the EcoMom party in San Rafael, women traded ideas about recycled toys for birthday presents and children’s clothing swaps. Then there is the issue of the materials used in imported toys. “It’s ‘Mom, these come from China,’ ” Pam Nessi, 35, said of her daughters’ recent inspection of two of their dolls. “It can be overwhelming. You don’t want them to freak out.”
OMG! Toys from China!
The Earth truly is lost.
Geez.
"OMG! Toys from China!"
When I was a kid, I got my lead the good old-fashioned American way: by eating paint chips off the poorly painted wall. We didn't need toys from China for our lead.
Lead paint on toys is less a threat than the chemicals under the kitchen sink, in the laundry room, or the stuff found in the typical family garage.
Much ado about little.
Keep the heat at 70 max, put on a sweat shirt or sweater if you get cold. Keep the AC at 78, not hard to get used to. I plan things so that a tank of gas lasts two weeks. Without going overboard, I "go green" where it saves me "green".
Like all parents in the past, except the non thinkers, any chemical that could be harmful is put up high, or behind a locked cupboard door, where it can't be reached by little hands. Medicines too.
Protect the children at all costs! Meanwhile, over 45 million children have been sucked out of the womb in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade.
The tone of the article may not be openly mocking, but it is an intellectual attack. Why did the author feel the need to mention the incident in which the host of a green party was questioned about her home and SUV? Because any woman who lives in the suburbs and organizes an eco-party is a hypocrite.
We all must understand that the NY Times is going through a lean news period. The editors are waiting the decision from the DNC in the white-woman-vs-black-man candidacy. Until nut-root supporters have made an unanimous decision, the editors have to walk a fine line news wise. The only target they have open at the moment are white people with enough resources to have a cause. If not for the recent series of severe weather, they could attack residents of mobile home communities. But modesty requires that they wait at least one news cycle.
Maybe the NY Times will catch a break and Senator John McCain's academy roommate will suddenly recall that as a young cadet John slipped off campus to attend klan meetings after he helped a secret society purge gay cadets while he was on sabbatical from bombing abortion clinics.
Once that news cycle starts, eco-soccer-minivanning will return to its rotation as second tier target.
"Keep the heat at 70 max"
Holy cow, that sounds stifling! 65; wear sweats and warm socks around the house.
I too didn't notice overt mocking, but it's always fun to laugh at the rich ladies in Marin.
My house is 53 degrees F right now. I'm wearing a sweater, furnace is off.
For many of these people, saving energy (or whatever) is less important than being *seen* to save energy (or whatever).
The head of the geothermal (heating and cooling) trade group recently observed that sales of these energy-saving products are being hurt because there isn't a big, ostentateous object that sits outside and advertises the owner's virtue. More here.
I guess every religion has its Pharisees, but the environmental religion seems to have more than the normal share.
The idea that suburban women must have eco-"tupperware" parties to share ideas on being green just shows the fatuousness and superficiality of the movement. Which is to be expected, really, since alot of it is based on fraud. Recycling wastes resources and money, but it FEELS GOOD, so we get more of the same from status driven ignoramus women looking for moral authority over others. It's the new urban/sunurban religion.
I posted this on the Pajamas website in response. We'll see if it appears:
"If these eco-moms were really concerned about being green, they wouldn't have subjected the earth to their children in the first place. The world really does not need a lot of future consumers-to-be who will need houses, cars, trendy clothes, fuel, etc., in massive amounts.
"Scientists have estimated that the natural carrying capacity for humans is under 2 billion, and possibly even under 1 billion. There are now 6.7 billion people. Choosing not to have children is possibly the most environmentally friendly decision anyone can make to conserve resources and reduce pollution. China and India realized this ages ago. The eco-moms who still manage to maintain expensive consumerist lifestyles despite dabbling around the edges with 'green' products need to realize this too.
"If you think this is unreasonable or a joke, an Australian academic seriously proposed in December that that country impose a carbon tax on each child born to each couple after the second. This is significant because Oz has actually instituted a series of incentives for each child born—incentives this professor says should be eliminated. And he noted specifically that it makes no sense for Oz to encourage having children when China has strict population policies. We all live on the same planet, and our decisions to have excessive numbers of children today affects everyone else, like it or not."
k-man...do you actually think that the fact that an Australian academic proposed something means that it should automatically be taken seriously?
No. But once such a proposal sees light, often others will grab the ball and run with it. I expect to see more such proposals now that this one has appeared. And he did point out the fly in the ointment, which is that some countries are discouraging breeding while others subsidize it without limit. Both notions practiced at the same time make no sense. More and more people seem to be in favor of the idea that too many people are already around, so subsidizing children seems contradictory.
The reason for the mention was to reinforce the idea that to be truly green, the eco-moms shouldn't have had kids in the first place. Token efforts now, especially in the form of conspicuous consumption of items labeled "green", do little or no good. Your decision to have children, especially a large family, has much more impact on the planet than anything you could possibly do to ameliorate matters after the fact.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
0951成人頻道下載080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080cc成人色網080cc成人色網080cc成人色網0204movie免費影片0204movie免費影片0204movie免費影片0204movie免費影片080aa片直播080aa片直播080aa片直播18jack主入口18jack主入口18jack主入口
Post a Comment
<< Home