FWIS3

I just had a person in to install a new garbage disposal. After he finished, he told me to keep an eye on our plumbing because it's sagging. It's not leaking now, but it could. He said, "If your husband's handy, they sell a whole kit at Menard's."

Now, he certainly could be a good person overall. But that kind of thinking is what's going to keep us from moving forward. He doesn't even realize he just made a sexist comment!

I know! If your husband was handy, he'd have already installed the new disposal.

Thumper wrote:I know! If your husband was handy, he'd have already installed the new disposal.

Oooo, you're going to get it for that!

pumpkinpi wrote:I just and a person in to install a new garbage disposal. After he finished, he told me to keep an eye on our plumbing because it's sagging. It's not leaking now, but it could. He said, "If your husband's handy, they sell a whole kit at Menard's."

Now, he certainly could be a good person overall. But that kind of thinking is what's going to keep us from moving forward. He doesn't even realize he just made a sexist comment!

Even I, a male of the species, can see that.

By the way, the plumber we use here in Atlanta is M. Cary & Daughters. The daughters run the business and do the actual plumbing, along with hired minions.

pumpkinpi wrote:I just had a person in to install a new garbage disposal. After he finished, he told me to keep an eye on our plumbing because it's sagging. It's not leaking now, but it could. He said, "If your husband's handy, they sell a whole kit at Menard's."

Now, he certainly could be a good person overall. But that kind of thinking is what's going to keep us from moving forward. He doesn't even realize he just made a sexist comment!

A good response would be something like "Yeah, my sister usually does those kinds of plumbing repairs for me, and really like Menard's too, but she was too busy rebuilding our dad's front-end differential".

Or maybe, "Yeah, I usually does those kinds of plumbing repairs around here, and I do really like Menard's, but I'm too busy supervising a multi-million dollar construction project at the museum".

Or, "I don't have a husband, and I'm just as handy as my wife Lucy."

Thumper wrote:I know! If your husband was handy, he'd have already installed the new disposal.

rofl

I installed ours on the boat and fixed the one at the house.

Was talking with my husband tonight about the whole Supreme Court ruling business, about how they were attempting to interpret the Constitution in light of things the founding fathers had never seen coming. I said, "Like gay marriage." He said "Like abortion. Bet they never thought of that." I was dumbfounded. Apparently he thinks that abortion was never even thought of until maybe 75 years ago. I told him "Trust me, honey, women have been thinking about it for millennia. Ever since some woman already had more kids than she could feed." Maybe we really are separate species.

They were the founding "fathers"

vendic wrote:They were the founding "fathers"

I remember reading a biography of Benjamin Franklin where it stated clearly that he treated his wife like crap. Something I found pretty ironic. In any case, women in the US had to struggle for a very long time to be allowed to vote over 100 years after the constitution of the US was written. So, MAYBE gethen's husband wasn't being so thoughtless. I'd say that probably the US "Founding Fathers" had anything like abortion in mind either they probably gave more thought to slavery (which lasted till the US Civil War) . However since the US constitution is so short and pithy I am pretty sure it must have been pretty easy for the Justices at the Supreme Court to make the necessary argument to settle "Roe vs Wade" the way they did.

Thumper wrote:Or, "I don't have a husband, and I'm just as handy as my wife Lucy."

Or, "Oh, my husband and I are both quite handy. We've just risen to the point where we don't have to do menial stuff like this. We can just pay people to do the dirty work."

* I have the utmost respect for many plumbers and tradespersons in general and I know neither you or I would ever say this. My takeaway was that your plumber was trying to be helpful and probably had no idea that he insulted you. Which was probably your point.

Thumper wrote:

Thumper wrote:Or, "I don't have a husband, and I'm just as handy as my wife Lucy."

Or, "Oh, my husband and I are both quite handy. We've just risen to the point where we don't have to do menial stuff like this. We can just pay people to do the dirty work."

* I have the utmost respect for many plumbers and tradespersons in general and I know neither you or I would ever say this. My takeaway was that your plumber was trying to be helpful and probably had no idea that he insulted you. Which was probably your point.

Yup. That's exactly what a microagression is. Indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group.

For the record: I will never consider you marginalized.

gethen wrote: I told him "Trust me, honey, women have been thinking about it for millennia. Ever since some woman already had more kids than she could feed."

Google natural substances for terminating pregnancy. The FDA might not rule favorably on "safe and effective" by modern standards, but this is not a recent invention. I suspect it may be as old as tool use and fire.

Swift wrote:

gethen wrote: I told him "Trust me, honey, women have been thinking about it for millennia. Ever since some woman already had more kids than she could feed."

Google natural substances for terminating pregnancy. The FDA might not rule favorably on "safe and effective" by modern standards, but this is not a recent invention. I suspect it may be as old as tool use and fire.

True story- the heart symbol is thought to come from a plant called Silphium, which is now extinct. This is because the plant was a natural contraceptive, so people literally sought it out to use it until it went extinct.

gethen wrote:Was talking with my husband tonight about the whole Supreme Court ruling business, about how they were attempting to interpret the Constitution in light of things the founding fathers had never seen coming. I said, "Like gay marriage." He said "Like abortion. Bet they never thought of that." I was dumbfounded. Apparently he thinks that abortion was never even thought of until maybe 75 years ago. I told him "Trust me, honey, women have been thinking about it for millennia. Ever since some woman already had more kids than she could feed." Maybe we really are separate species.

The Founding Fathers probably thought of it, but expected the patriarch to take care of it. It's interesting how in times past jilted women always managed to find a cliff to throw themselves off of.

I know that contraception goes 'way back. not sure about abortion.

and while we're talking about original intent... the founding fathers included an method for altering the constitution - amendments. so please, is anybody able to explain to me why, in light of the fact that they saw the need to modify this document - to have it live - we should rely on attempts to read their minds and be bound by this?

code monkey wrote:I know that contraception goes 'way back. not sure about abortion.

and while we're talking about original intent... the founding fathers included an method for altering the constitution - amendments. so please, is anybody able to explain to me why, in light of the fact that they saw the need to modify this document - to have it live - we should rely on attempts to read their minds and be bound by this?

Original intent is important where wording is ambiguous. The 2nd amendment is a fine example of that. Until a particular clause of interest today is amended, what was written over two hundred years ago remains the law and if it's not clear what it means, there will be a debate as to what the law actually is today. It's easy to simply say "well, that's unclear - let's rewrite it so it's understandable in today's world", but the framers also made the constitution quite difficult to amend. Amendment by US Supreme Court ruling is easier (as with the ruling that interprets the 2nd as an individual right even though the text says no such thing).

Divining intent is not something courts try to do just with the constitution, by the way. If statutory or regulatory law is similarly unclear, courts apply established principles to decide what the law is, and one of those principles is that the legislative record - the official record of debates on the House and Senate floor and in committees for example - becomes important in determining what Congress intended.

There is also a rule that holds laws too ambiguous or vague to be unconstitutional. Many laws get tossed by the courts for that reason. Some might argue that parts of the constitution are unconstitutional for the same reason.

code monkey wrote:I know that contraception goes 'way back. not sure about abortion.

and while we're talking about original intent... the founding fathers included an method for altering the constitution - amendments. so please, is anybody able to explain to me why, in light of the fact that they saw the need to modify this document - to have it live - we should rely on attempts to read their minds and be bound by this?

The other reason is that claiming to be reading the minds of the Founders lends a sense of stability to the process and the government. It's a quasi-religion, made even more difficult to change and understand by conflating it with actual religions.

geonuc, yes, the amendment process is not an easy one and I don't think that it should be. however, the founding fathers clearly meant to enable alteration. in other words, they did not consider the constitution to be carved in stone but to be something that could, and should, change with time. (how's that for mind-reading?) consider the conditions of the times, so many of which we find utterly repugnant now. and how would they have thought about the expectation of privacy when speaking on a cell 'phone?

as for the 2nd amendment, why do so many people ignore that clause about a well-regulated militia? more mind-reading - because by doing that they get the result that they want.

tarragon, i'm afraid that that does not give me a sense of stability. so many of our social norms have changed that this seems to be a mug's game.

for some reason, i'm reminded of the following - G_D is instructing moses

G_D: thou shalt not seethe a kid in the milk of its mother
moses: oh, I see. we must not eat cheeseburgers!
G_D: moses, I said thou shalt not seethe a kid in the mild of its mother
moses: I am sorry for my slowness. I understand now. we must not drink milk when we are having a pot roast.
(this goes on for a bit but i'll spare you)
G_D: (deep sigh) moses, do whatever you want.

The only female plumber I know is Maggie from Northern Exposure.

squ1d wrote:The only female plumber I know is Maggie from Northern Exposure.

That's because women are smarter than men. Why would they want to literally deal with that shit? lol

code monkey wrote:G_D: thou shalt not seethe a kid in the milk of its mother
moses: oh, I see. we must not eat cheeseburgers!
G_D: moses, I said thou shalt not seethe a kid in the mild of its mother
moses: I am sorry for my slowness. I understand now. we must not drink milk when we are having a pot roast.
(this goes on for a bit but i'll spare you)
G_D: (deep sigh) moses, do whatever you want.

Kid = young goat. Goat milk tastes like crap. Cooking a nice tasty juicy young goat (kid) in goat milk ruins the flavor so badly you just wan to do a Gordon Ramsey on someone's ass that just did that. It comes out tasting like an old billy.

Personally I think that line was one of the first cooking instructions as a fore runner to recipes. Same as salting the meat (it tenderizes it) etc.
I'm not sure how it got extended to not mixing dairy with any meat though. Because that works out great and tastes good.

vendic wrote:

code monkey wrote:G_D: thou shalt not seethe a kid in the milk of its mother
moses: oh, I see. we must not eat cheeseburgers!
G_D: moses, I said thou shalt not seethe a kid in the mild of its mother
moses: I am sorry for my slowness. I understand now. we must not drink milk when we are having a pot roast.
(this goes on for a bit but i'll spare you)
G_D: (deep sigh) moses, do whatever you want.

Kid = young goat. Goat milk tastes like crap. Cooking a nice tasty juicy young goat (kid) in goat milk ruins the flavor so badly you just wan to do a Gordon Ramsey on someone's ass that just did that. It comes out tasting like an old billy.

Personally I think that line was one of the first cooking instructions as a fore runner to recipes. Same as salting the meat (it tenderizes it) etc.
I'm not sure how it got extended to not mixing dairy with any meat though. Because that works out great and tastes good.

A lot of the dietary restrictions in religion seem to revolve around preventing illness and/or death. i.e. the prohibition against eating pork more than likely arose from the fact that it was associated with several diseases and requires very thorough cooking.

vendic wrote:

code monkey wrote:G_D: thou shalt not seethe a kid in the milk of its mother
moses: oh, I see. we must not eat cheeseburgers!
G_D: moses, I said thou shalt not seethe a kid in the mild of its mother
moses: I am sorry for my slowness. I understand now. we must not drink milk when we are having a pot roast.
(this goes on for a bit but i'll spare you)
G_D: (deep sigh) moses, do whatever you want.

Kid = young goat. Goat milk tastes like crap. Cooking a nice tasty juicy young goat (kid) in goat milk ruins the flavor so badly you just wan to do a Gordon Ramsey on someone's ass that just did that. It comes out tasting like an old billy.

Personally I think that line was one of the first cooking instructions as a fore runner to recipes. Same as salting the meat (it tenderizes it) etc.
I'm not sure how it got extended to not mixing dairy with any meat though. Because that works out great and tastes good.

thousands of years of interpretation and trying to figure out original intent.