Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Yeah, disappointing (Score 1) 765

Men have far bigger family problems and a huge percent of men regularly get screwed over by the legal system (just ask any divorce or family court lawyer or look at the statistics).

This serves men right for inventing the ideas that women should stay at home and not pursue a career, and that their main purpose in life is looking after children. In a more equal society, these would disappear as issues biased against men.

The irony is that it is the same men's rights activists who moan about paying child support and alimony who hate feminism and equal opportunities so much.

Comment: Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 1063

by BarbaraHudson (#49750371) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

When it's "invested" in ponzi schemes like the liar loans of the last financial bubble, who got hurt? Not the banks, that's for sure. When high frequency traders got caught manipulating the markets, who got hurt? Not them - the $6 billion fine was nothing compared to what they scammed.

Funny how they always seem to have a few "get out of jail" cards in their pocket (we normally call them "senators" and "congressmen.")

Comment: Re: News for nerds (Score 1) 844

by BarbaraHudson (#49750225) Attached to: Religious Affiliation Shrinking In the US
Provide proof that we live in a moral universe. The universe is also not a person. It has no sense of right and wrong - it just is.

Also, how is doing bad things to people who do bad things moral? The definition of "bad things" has changed over time. Inter-racial marriage is no longer a "bad thing". Same-sex couples is no longer a "bad thing." A society where there are no class divisions is no longer a "bad thing." Same-sex marriage and child adoption are not longer "bad things" - to the contrary, children raised by same-sex couples are exposed to far less domestic violence. Divorce is not longer a "bad thing."

If there were a universal standard, we certainly haven't found it. After all, the xians who hold up the bible as such a standard like to forget that it condones genocide, racism, slavery, child beating, polygamy, etc. That's the thing about "universal standards" - there are so many different ones.

Comment: Re:Wrong answer to the wrong question (Score 1) 1063

by BarbaraHudson (#49750159) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour
Permanent subsidies don't work. All they do is end up subsidizing the business, since the employer isn't paying the full cost. And in this climate, they've already eliminated pretty much every job they can, so if the choice is paying a higher wage or the work just not getting done, they'll find a way to pay. Prices might go up 1 cent per item at the retail level to achieve a (barely) living wage.

Comment: Re:Yeah, disappointing (Score 1) 765

Most MRAs are actually just barely concealed women-haters.

Most imbalances in family law are generally a hangover from the days of pre-feminism, e.g. the general assumption that children should always stay with the mother following a break up, since women's primary role in life is looking after children.

The anecdote about your friend just shows that the legal system in Georgia is corrupt, not that men's rights in particular are being systematically attacked.

Comment: Re:Wrong answer to the wrong question (Score 1) 1063

by BarbaraHudson (#49750085) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

So again, why should taxpayers subsidize companies that pay below-poverty-level wages? If the business needs the job done, they'll pay the minimum. It's not like they haven't cut back on non-essential personnel at the lower levels. So if they say "we're not paying $15 to stock shelves" the shelves just don't get stocked. Once the shelves are bare, they'll find it's worth $15 to get those shelves re-stocked. Or they can do it themselves.

Just eliminating pennies and the stupidity of $6.99, $3.98, and $0.99 price nonsense is enough for most stores to pay the extra. And if the local "convenience store" can't survive under those conditions, tough - they're a rip-off anyway.

Comment: Re:Nit picking regarding "changes". (Score 1) 765

What helps is to identify the protagonist. By the classical definition, it's the character with change.

Just for the nitpicking: it's not a "classical definition", it's a peculiar definition typical for litterature and movies in the US. Other parts of the world don't necessarily need a *change*. (Maybe that's why American have problems understanding european movies).

Americans are obsessed with the idea that anyone can change themselves into anything if they just work hard enough.

It's why in places like slashdot there is so little sympathy for poor people or minority rights groups, as it's generally assumed that they're just not trying, and so much love for billionaires, as it's generally taken that they are (a) supermen, (b) able to be emulated, and (c) worthy of emulation.

"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340