Another Female Bites the Dust at ATiM (Gee, there’s a surprise)

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Another liberal female is quitting ATiM. (And there never were any conservative females here, so that makes it pretty misogynist.) Hooray! Michi is the only one left.

Aren’t you guys really proud? Heh.

45 Responses

  1. Women, even of the type one sees only across the internets, are always a civilizing influence in a forum. The best behaved communities are about 50/50. Otherwise it just turns into a locker room.

    Like

    • Sigh. This is entirely my fault, undoubtedly. It seems that my thinking, or at least my manner of expressing it, is simply intolerable to some. Well, I can’t change either, so I guess we are at an impasse.

      However, if Okie won’t stay with me here, I am happy to put my presence up for a referendum. If you guys would rather have Okie around, let me know. I’ll disappear for the good of ATiM.

      Like

      • I’m not going to the gym this morning b/c I want this group to stay together.

        Scott – I read that you suspect that the phrase “women’s issues” is code for “liberal positions” that cannot be assailed by conservative men. “Women’s issues” are simply issues that inordinately affect women; within them there are liberal and moderate and conservative positions. Conservative men can disagree with liberal women – or with other conservative men for that matter. That is not logically related to the existence of “women’s issues”.

        There are probably no issues that exclusively affect women, but defunding PP Clinics comes close, as would excepting Rx contraceptives from a prepaid medical plan. If you can honestly see issues like these as having a substantially weighted impact on women you can take a fiscally conservative or libertarian position that favors defunding PPCs and excepting Rx contraceptives as part of a broader libertarian view that public health should not be funded for the poor, but you have to be careful about how you deal with that so that it does not single out poor women for denial of these services. OTOH, if a legislator takes the position that women should just keep their legs crossed, that legislator will be taken as a misogynist by most women and s/he will be tuned out or made the object of scorn. That legislator is not you, but that legislator does exist.

        Scott, I am asking you not to defensively and reflexively attack the rational premise that there are “women’s issues”, because I think you do that.
        If you don’t agree with funding PPCs, explain why.
        If you think abortion should be a crime, explain why.
        If you oppose an insurance or prepayment plan including Rx contraceptives, explain why.

        Don’t gratuitously offer that these are not “women’s issues”. It is gratuitous because it does not in any way further the discussion. It has no weight, except to insult the women who are singularly affected.

        You don’t have to explain how an atheist can project an objective morality in these discussions. A discussion of objective vs. subjective morality is a good thread for you and me but is not actually what most threads are about. For the occasional exhausting discussions of ethics and morality and values alone I would want you to stay.

        Okie, I thought you were clear in your presentation last night and I never want you to leave. Please do not think that I ever want you to shrink from a discussion because we are not there to join in. Assume the good faith of all the other commenters, and be willing to walk others through what seems obvious to you. That is always the most difficult task.

        Like

        • Mark:

          I’ve written a long response to your post from earlier, but as I have already articulated several times exactly what it is I object to and why, I’ve decided there’s not much point in reiterating it. We start with a fundamental disagreement and cannot move forward without resolving it:

          “Women’s issues” are simply issues that inordinately affect women;

          I very much disagree that the term is “simply” used in this manner with regard to politics. Tell me this: in a political discussion about topic X, what purpose is served by characterizing it as a “women’s issue”?

          Like

        • “…in a political discussion about topic X, what purpose is served by characterizing it as a “women’s issue”?

          If topic X is a women’s issue, then characterizing it as something else is dishonest.

          As to the purpose in an individual instance, such as de-funding PPCs, it is useful to take it out of the context of mere cost savings and put it in the context of cost savings at the sole expense of women. In the case of invasive ultrasound, it is useful to remind men that there are no instances where getting stuff shoved inside you is a prerequisite for a procedure that doesn’t medically require getting stuff shoved inside you. Und so weiter.

          You will say that this reminder that the genders do not suffer equally does not require honestly calling a women’s issue a women’s issue, and I will say why not?

          Like

        • Mark:

          If topic X is a women’s issue, then characterizing it as something else is dishonest.

          I didn’t ask you about characterizing it as something else. I asked you about the purpose of characterizing it as a “women’s issue”.

          As to the purpose in an individual instance, such as de-funding PPCs, it is useful to take it out of the context of mere cost savings and put it in the context of cost savings at the sole expense of women.

          One need not call it a “women’s issue” in order to do so, and indeed simply calling it a “women’s issue” (under the non-partisan usage you attributed to it earlier) doesn’t do so. So I remain at a loss as to what value is added to the discussion by giving it the label.

          I am also now curious about something else. You said earlier that the term carried no partisan implications, that “…within [women’s issues] there are liberal and moderate and conservative positions.” With regard to this de-funding of PPC, what might the conservative woman’s view be that would be captured by calling the issue a “women’s issue”?

          In the case of invasive ultrasound, it is useful to remind men that there are no instances where getting stuff shoved inside you is a prerequisite for a procedure that doesn’t medically require getting stuff shoved inside you.

          Again, labeling the issue a “women’s issue” (as you claim it is used in an non-partisan fashion) is neither necessary nor sufficient for accomplishing the task you attribute to it.

          Of course, if one assumes (as I do) that the term is intended to establish a frame of reference most conducive to liberal policy, then perhaps yes, it might go some way towards accomplishing the task you set for it.

          Like

  2. Scott, that is ridiculous and unnecessary. Waiting for affirmation that ATiM could not possibly survive without you?

    If you want to make it personal, email me. I am out of town for the next several days.

    Like

    • okie:

      Waiting for affirmation that ATiM could not possibly survive without you?

      Not in the slightest. I barely make posts anymore, comment far less than I used to, and I clearly grate on some people when I do comment.

      It’s not any individual that matters so much, least of all me. It is critical mass that matters. Losing anyone at this point is bad for ATiM, unless losing that one person brings back others. Your departure isn’t going to bring back anyone.

      Like

      • i’d urge you not to go.

        I’ve been laughing however, because my 3-year-old has been singing the refrain from another one bites the dust for about 3 weeks now. random outbursts of “another one bites the dust.” and then “we will we we will wock you. wock you. UGH!” makes for a fun commute.

        Like

  3. When I was in the Navy, there was a rule about discussions in the wardroom over meals – no discussions over politics, religion, or work.

    Some subjects are just too toxic. It looks like we have found one here.

    Like

  4. I’d argue that this place is still considerably better than the Plum Line. You may not agree with the arguments being presented here, but there’s no comparison to the amount personal insults and one line “moron” comments that are present there.

    Like

  5. Deleted by lms

    Like

  6. Deleted by lms

    Like

    • Well stated, Lulu.

      I can only speak for myself. I am reluctant to share any of my personal life on the internet. I came as close as I could during the birth control discussion by recalling that I had been sexually active before the pill and thought its invention was the greatest boon of the 20th Century, for men as well as women, and perhaps younger guys did not have that perspective. But that sounded like bragging after I wrote it so that was the end of that. Kinda shallow, really.

      However, when a personal story is truly germane to POV it helps the reader understand the writer. Yet it may not facilitate conversation – the response may sound like “meh” because no one took the time to write “I understand where you are coming from – I still do not agree as a matter of public policy.” Without feedback, the writer doesn’t know if s/he was understood. I get that. But it does not necessarily mean the writer was truly ignored.

      Can a blog space become a community? I doubt there is evidence to support that it can. It may be that the expectations should not go beyond respectful conversation in the airing of issues. We have generally been good on that compared with every other blog I ever read. Do I think I know any of you? I know your blog personas, of course. I know what you project. I have stayed in Paul’s home over night. I will have dinner with Mike in February. Do I have a need to know you to engage respectfully? No. I might be a truly evil person who plays by the rules of engagement.

      FWIW, I have consistently enjoyed and very often agreed with your opinions, Lulu. Often, by reason of my schedule, I have been a day late and a dollar short in responding. So I hope you read this, but I will try not to take it personally if you don’t respond!

      Like

  7. I’ve found that on an Internet forum, it’s better not to comment on other people’s personal stories and instead keep discussions of public policy at a more abstract level. There’s no good way to challenge someone else’s personal story if it is being used as a basis for critiquing public policy as the person commenting won’t have all the facts and often any negative or contrary response tends to be read as a personal attack.

    The best example I can think of is from the Plum Line where RUK often brought up his personal financial losses from the bursting of the housing bubble as an indictment of the Bush administration’s tax and fiscal policies. Any attempt to dispute that logic tended to devolve into personal recriminations.

    I concur with your assessment of the results of the ATiM debate/discussion of the VA ultrasound bill.

    Like

  8. Deleted by lms

    Like

  9. Deleted by lms.

    Like

    • I have never once doubted the limited stories told here

      I, neither. But they are limited. They project us in our best light.

      Like

  10. Deleted by lms

    Like

  11. Thank you, lulu. Very true words.

    The only thing that I would add is that, when you’re one of only two or three voices expressing an opinion, hearing that there are others who might agree with you but are hesitant to speak up can make a world of difference.

    Not speaking up can be the equivalent of condemnation.

    Like

    • I get it, I think. In truth, I did read Lulu’s trip to save her niece and I think I replied. But this is the first time I ever read about your or Okie’s experiences.

      I am so terribly sorry. I just don’t always have the time I am having this morning, truth be told.

      Like

  12. I usually avoid social issues like the plague, so I was not aware of Michi or Okie’s experiences. I am sorry.

    Like

  13. Scott:

    If one reads through your posts, you are saying that all women’s issues are liberal issues. I don’t agree with you; it seems to me that you’re forcing them to be.

    It also seems to me that you (and possibly McWing) are the lone holdout on admitting “women’s issues” as a legitimate topic of discussion.

    Why?

    It’s not like I seek agreement with me on everything, or heaven knows I wouldn’t be posting on a forum that’s dominated by (1) men and (2) conservatives. But I did think that, at the least, I’d be able to discuss issues without them turning into anathema.

    Like

    • Mich:

      If one reads through your posts, you are saying that all women’s issues are liberal issues.

      No. First, I don’t think there are liberal or conservative issues. I think there are liberal and conservative positions on political issues. Second, I am saying that as a political matter people who tend to characterize a thing as a “women’s issue” are generally either implying or holding as a premise that 1) a man’s opinion on the matter should be subjugated to a woman’s and 2) a certain (inevitably liberal) position on the matter is the default “woman’s” view. I reject both of these, hence I reject the label.

      It also seems to me that you (and possibly McWing) are the lone holdout on admitting “women’s issues” as a legitimate topic of discussion.

      You have the wrong impression. Any political issue that you might label a “women’s issue” is a legitimate topic of discussion as far as I am concerned. I simply reject the label and the framing that comes along with it.

      It’s not like I seek agreement with me on everything, or heaven knows I wouldn’t be posting on a forum that’s dominated by (1) men…

      As it pertains to political opinions, it makes no sense at all to me to separate the world into men and women. I have found plenty of women who agree with me and I have found plenty of men who don’t agree with me.

      and (2) conservatives

      I don’t find the idea that ATiM is dominated by conservatives to be compelling at all. It is probably fair to call McWing and I conservatives, and maybe Brent, but he generally only comments in financial matters. Beyond that virtually all other regulars who comment here are non-conservative, with most being unabashed liberals.

      Like

  14. I am saying that as a political matter people who tend to characterize a thing as a “women’s issue” are generally either implying or holding as a premise that 1) a man’s opinion on the matter should be subjugated to a woman’s and 2) a certain (inevitably liberal) position on the matter is the default “woman’s” view. I reject both of these, hence I reject the label

    OK. I disagree; I don’t think that you have to agree with me, you just have to disagree without telling me that I’m an idiot. Or something along those lines, which is what I’ve been relegated to time and time again.

    Any political issue that you might label a “women’s issue” is a legitimate topic of discussion as far as I am concerned. I simply reject the label and the framing that comes along with it.

    Thereby dismissing it.

    I don’t find the idea that ATiM is dominated by conservatives to be compelling at all.

    I’d invite you to read the comments. This is not a liberal site by any means.

    Like

    • you just have to disagree without telling me that I’m an idiot. Or something along those lines

      No such thing has ever happened.

      Thereby dismissing it.

      Whatever. This is why I don’t bother anymore.

      Like

      • Mark – If topic X is a women’s issue, then characterizing it as something else is dishonest.

        Scott – I didn’t ask you about characterizing it as something else. I asked you about the purpose of characterizing it as a “women’s issue”.

        Mark’s comment -[necessary implication of it being a women’s issue is that calling it one correctly identifies it].

        Mark – As to the purpose in an individual instance, such as de-funding PPCs, it is useful to take it out of the context of mere cost savings and put it in the context of cost savings at the sole expense of women.

        Scott – One need not call it a “women’s issue” in order to do so, and indeed simply calling it a “women’s issue” (under the non-partisan usage you attributed to it earlier) doesn’t do so. So I remain at a loss as to what value is added to the discussion by giving it the label.

        Mark’s comment – [answered above, no good purpose is served by pretending it is not a women’s issue. In the seventies, the paramount men’s political issue was getting courts to recognize that fathers should have a real shot at custody in divorce cases. It was stupid to characterize it other than what it was. Maybe you can see it through that prism. Maybe you cannot].

        Scott – I am also now curious about something else. You said earlier that the term carried no partisan implications, that “…within [women’s issues] there are liberal and moderate and conservative positions.” With regard to this de-funding of PPC, what might the conservative woman’s view be that would be captured by calling the issue a “women’s issue”?

        Mark’s comment – [if conservative women argue that de-funding PPCs does not limit care to poor women, but only limits abortion availability based on the fungibility of money, they might ostensibly desire to back that up with facts; and in fact I did listen to a R woman who is an old friend of mine explain how this would work in Austin, where she is a volunteer in breast cancer work and a successful realtor for 34 years. It was the only argument from any conservative that I heard that took into account cancer screenings, and it was because it remained a women’s issue. I think KBH made this argument recently, too,but I got that second hand from Anne. It is no coincidence that my friend Anne is a friend of KBH and I used to be. She was my classmate.].

        Mark – In the case of invasive ultrasound, it is useful to remind men that there are no instances where getting stuff shoved inside you is a prerequisite for a procedure that doesn’t medically require getting stuff shoved inside you.

        Scott – Again, labeling the issue a “women’s issue” (as you claim it is used in an non-partisan fashion) is neither necessary nor sufficient for accomplishing the task you attribute to it.

        Scott – Of course, if one assumes (as I do) that the term is intended to establish a frame of reference most conducive to liberal policy, then perhaps yes, it might go some way towards accomplishing the task you set for it.

        Mark’s comment – [the remainder has been asked and answered].

        Like

        • mark:

          necessary implication of it being a women’s issue is that calling it one correctly identifies it

          Thanks for the tautology. But you still have not shown that characterizing, say, abortion more generically as a “women’s issue” serves any purpose at all in advancing discussions of abortion. Manifestly it does not do so with discussions involving me.

          As for your above tautology, any one of the issues that you may call a “women’s issue” could “correctly” be identified as any number of issues. Abortion is an unborn baby issue. It is also an abortionist’s issue. It is also an origin of rights issue. Do you see the need to “correctly” characterize it in these ways in order to avoid “dishonesty” and to advance discussions about it? I’m guessing no.

          answered above, no good purpose is served by pretending it is not a women’s issue.

          No, it was not answered. You are answering a question that was never asked.

          Look, I’ve explained precisely why I object to this term. You can tell me I’m crazy and that it doesn’t imply what I think it implies. That’s fine, we can agree to disagree. But don’t tell me that I’m insulting anyone by articulating my opinion. There’s no rational reason for anyone to be insulted.

          Like

        • we can agree to disagree

          Of course.

          Like

  15. I’d invite you to read the comments. This is not a liberal site by any means.

    Didn’t we all do the political compass test? I thought everyone was pretty much socially liberal / centrist and all over the map fiscally.

    btw sweep

    Like

  16. btw sweep

    It’s a beautiful thing, baby! Here we go. . .

    Like

  17. No such thing has ever happened.

    Actually, yes it has. And it has made me hesitant to comment ever since. It’s not worth going back and digging it out now, but you did, as well as quarterback and McWing. I think (and this is just me thinking) that you throw out critiques without thinking what they sound like sometimes.

    Like

  18. Mark – In the case of invasive ultrasound, it is useful to remind men that there are no instances where getting stuff shoved inside you is a prerequisite for a procedure that doesn’t medically require getting stuff shoved inside you.

    Scott – Again, labeling the issue a “women’s issue” (as you claim it is used in an non-partisan fashion) is neither necessary nor sufficient for accomplishing the task you attribute to it.

    Since, to the best of my knowledge, men never get stuff shoved inside them, this is the ultimate in women’s issues. And it was forced on us by men.

    Scott, just face it. THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS WOMEN’S ISSUES.

    Like

  19. Since, to the best of my knowledge, men never get stuff shoved inside them, this is the ultimate in women’s issues.

    I’m a big advocate of frequent prostate screenings.

    And while it is historical, suffrage was definitely a women’s issue. And it’s still a liberal issue since Ann Coulter is opposed to it.

    Like

  20. There are women’s issues and men’s issues, if one chooses to look at them that way, but it does set up an us vs. them mentality that is not necessarily helpful in the long run. However, you aren’t going to convince anyone who is a member of a group that they have a strong association with, based on race or gender or some other shared trait, that their membership in that group is not relevant. If it is relevant, to them, then issues they feel that affect them and other members of that group more than other people becomes a group issue to them, and there interest in those issues is predicated on the effect those issues have on that group. Thus, “women’s issues” or “men’s issues” or “x issues”.

    Thus, we have identity politics. There is a larger question, to me, as to whether or not identity politics are helpful generally, or even that helpful, long term, to members of a given group (while I don’t ever see it here, I see plenty of places where like-minded folks who get together to discuss the issues relevant to their group become very single-minded and non-productive in their advancement of their issues, and tendency to characterize non-members as enemies: manosphere and feminist blogs are replete with examples).

    Yet politics is, in many ways, a way of reconciling the differing interests of different individuals, often represented by groups or organizations that tackle a subset of issues of particular interest to certain people. Thus, the pendulum swings.

    Women’s issues and even men’s issues may be too broad, as terms. Almost as many women as men oppose abortion, for example, which makes it hard to argue that being pro-abortion is essentially the correct position on this “women’s issue”. Yet almost everyone who self-identifies as feminist, male or female, is pro-abortion, making it the correct position as a “feminists issue”. Yet there is a tendency to want to say it is the correct position for all women, even if 40-45% of women disagree, so it is labeled a women’s issue. I can see an argument that it’s attempting to given specific political positions credit or validity (in the sense that every woman or man is on board with a given set of principles, they are so self-evident) that they have not yet earned.

    I definitely think it’s accurate to speak of conservative or liberal issues, because there are so many issues that the great majority of liberals and conservatives are on the same page about. How many conservatives are for lower taxes and less regulation? Advocate for it? Clearly, a conservative issue. Libertarians also advocate for lower taxes and less regulation. So it is also a libertarian issue—by definition, as conservatives and liberals actively take issue and specific sides on the issues, almost universally, varying only in detail. But this is perhaps a semantic argument.

    As an aside, I am sad to see any one go, even though I don’t participate as much as I should. While Scott and I often have disagreements, or I just disagree and don’t say anything, and sometimes these disagreements are in regards to tone, part of making a project like this work (if possible) is trying to keep things in perspective, and accept even strong disagreements without getting personally offended when the offense is not meant to be personal, and occasionally slap the hand when it gets a little too personal, as opposed to bailing.

    I know I don’t participate much, but it’s just because time and other interests and motivations (this Obama/Romney showdown, for some reason, has me as disinterested in politics as I have ever been in my adult life). Still, it is sad to see yet another lady go.

    Will still come back, and participate more actively. Still love everybody who is still here.

    Like

  21. @okieiglr: “Scott, that is ridiculous and unnecessary. Waiting for affirmation that ATiM could not possibly survive without you?”

    This speaks back to the difficulty of communicating, especially about disagreements, when we have differing styles of communication.

    I did not read Scott as doing that at all. In no way, that I can see, did he imply at ATiM could not survive without him, or that he expected some universal concert of people begging him not to go. He’s asking a question. He knows he rubs a lot of people, especially the ladies, the wrong way, and is querying the group mind as to what everyone thinks is best.

    I don’t think people leaving is usually the answer—the only people who really would need to leave an environment tend to be toxic, and will not volunteer to leave under any circumstances. 😉

    The only reason to leave, I guess, is because an environment just doesn’t work for you personally. Which I can totally see.

    What I see is the same principal I think lmsinca sees: it’s just very hard for people who disagree about issues they consider fundamental to discuss their agreements, or inform people of their positions, without ticking each other off or offending each other. It ends up being unfun for many, and they get to the point where it’s actively unpleasant, and they don’t want to do it any more. Someone takes you the wrong way, they got offended, they leave or lash out, and it becomes just another argument, rather than a debate or discussion, and who needs more arguing in their life?

    Just keep trying, I guess.

    Like

  22. Abortion is an unborn baby issue …

    The truth of the matter is that when we talk about the abortion issue, we are talking about the legality/morality of the procedure from either the pro or con side. I don’t think there is any doubt that abortions involve unborn fetuses, so there is no “unborn baby” issue in abortion. I doubt that there is much debate that the currently legal abortion procedures in this country are performed by doctors who are licensed to do so and are morally comfortable with abortions, so there is little to no “abortionist” issue.

    Whether life begins at conception or not is a separate issue because the implications of that debate have ramifications far beyond abortions. But of course, one’s views on that issue inform his/her opinion on the legality/morality of the abortion procedure.

    There’s no rational reason for anyone to be insulted.

    I doubt that people feel insulted only after careful, logical deliberation. At least for me, it is a spontaneous emotional response.

    Like

  23. The contention that a fully human life begins at conception is flawed. By that reasoning, I am a parent of five children, three of whom died before birth. A live birth of twins, one miscarriage at ~13 weeks, one chemical pregnancy (positive test, followed by a usual period, indicating a fertilized egg that didn’t go much further) and one suspiciously late menstrual period following the miscarriage and preceding the twins.

    I mourned the child we expected and lost. As development stopped at a point when major organs are being formed, I recognize it was for the best. I can’t say as I have any emotional reaction about the other unsuccessful pregnancy and the other probable one, other than needing to get back on the saddle.

    BB

    Like

  24. And congratulations again to the individual who made Lulu feel like she had to delete all of her comments. I’m trying to decide if this site is worth my time; for the vast majority of the time I feel like it is, but it’s things like this which want to make me want to say piss on it.

    Like

  25. You’re wrong on this Michi. I’m leaving primarily because I’ve been self-censoring myself since the ultra sound debate and so for me the subjects I want to discuss have become taboo. I blame myself, not others. I hope the rest of you will carry on. I deleted my comments because they were insensitive on many levels and since I had already made my departure known I decided I had no business butting into an argument that didn’t really concern me. I’m an old busy body and need to make a cleaner exit……………………..this is me doing that.

    I hope the rest of you will carry on, as Scott said no one of us individually is important, but collectively it should still work.

    Like

  26. I will leave you all with a parting gift. Perhaps the gender gap at ATiM is the same gender gap highlighted by Nate Silver in the Presidential election.

    The large gender gap comes despite the fact that men and women’s economic roles are becoming more equal — according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women represented 47 percent of the labor force as of September — and that women suffered at least as much as men in the recent economic downturn.

    The unemployment rate among women was 7.5 percent as of September — up from 7.0 percent when Mr. Obama took office in January 2009.

    The unemployment rate among men is higher — 8.0 percent as of September — but it has declined rather than increased since Mr. Obama took office. It had been 8.6 percent in January 2009, and peaked at as high as 11.2 percent later that year.

    This suggests the gender gap instead has more to do with partisan ideology than with pocketbook voting; apart from their views on abortion, women also take more liberal stances than men on social issues ranging from same-sex marriage to gun control.

    Presidential candidates have faced increasing pressure to align with the bases of their parties on social issues. Mr. Obama reversed his previous position to support same-sex marriage this year. Mr. Romney has long since abandoned a number of moderate stances he took on social issues as governor of Massachusetts, when he said he supported abortion rights. So long as the ideological gap between the parties grows, the gender gap may grow as well.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/gender-gap-near-historic-highs/?hp

    Like

    • So 538 is making Scott’s argument in reverse: liberal positions are women’s positions. From that, it is a short hop to argue that liberals use the phrase womens’ issues as code for liberal positions.

      Score one for Scott in the war on liberals.

      I, otoh, only mean issues that inordinately affect women when I say the phrase. I mean a simple tautology, as Scott, by dismissing it, conceded. I don’t call education a women’s issue. I don’t call health care in general a women’s issue. No point in confusing the public with a shorthand that is code for something unrelated, unless you are a politician. I am not one.

      I have written before that I am in two informal men’s groups that have met for more than 20 years, on a weekly basis. I don’t look forward to this becoming another men’s group. Lulu, beyond being female, added yet another dimension. Her breadth of experience over her life has been extraordinary and yet stable. She has had first hand brushes with awful stuff and with joy as well. Her personal stories about running a successful but modest small biz, landlording, family tragedy, scrapes with the inane heath care and health insurance systems and hospice volunteering, were all welcome for the insights and the POV they provided. That she was disappointed that we could not be a community that shared as openly as she did was tragic, because from my perspective it was an heroic attempt but doomed (e.g., by my own unwillingness to share my own life in detail on the internet, in which I know I am not alone).

      Lulu, I will miss you. At least your husband will never again be suspicious that you are hanging out in a chat room with a bunch of men, if he ever was!

      Like

  27. I just got robocalled by Americans For Prosperity. It dumped me into a teleconference with ‘Fox contributor’ Dick Morris giving tips on how to do door-to-door canvasing in northern Virginia. One of the tips they gave was that if a woman answers the door to ask if she was concerned about feminine issues. If so, explain that there are no feminine issues.

    They are organizing bus trips. For a $10 donation they provide bus transportation and meals to anyone willing to knock door to door or work a phone bank.

    Like

  28. Hey all, just wanted to let y’all know I cancelled my yahoo email account. I’ll probably let Mark know where I am once I set up a new account in a few weeks, otherwise I won’t be accessible. I’ll read occasionally I’m sure, and wish all of you the best that life has to offer. Thanks for the ride.

    Like

  29. I hope I didn’t cross any boundaries. I apologize for anything that may have been inappropriate.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: