Those gams, tho…
2 Likes
Can’t you just imagine them in spats!
6 Likes
To a man with a hammer, and all that…
A Beka book provides attractive, legible, workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory.HFS. "Traditional mathematics"??? "...not burdened with modern theories..."??? When your religious beliefs serve to underline and cement an ignorance of something like math, and you trumpet that fact in the marketing materials...I just don't even know what to make of that other than to be sad for the children being sold this bag of turds.
Absolutely unbelievable. I can’t get my head around that in the least.
Dear Dog, I hope so.
6 Likes
People still think the “New Math” exists.
4 Likes
Bad parenting?
4 Likes
Is that your explanation for EVERYTHING?
4 Likes
FOR SHAME!
I talked to you about it one, and posted about it in the questions thread.
Homework: go back and re-read the thread, making notes. Summarize your notes in a 3-page, double-spaced personal essay.
You know what this world needs? Deep-fried corn-dogs. ON A STICK.
@Japhrohaig - invent one, please.
1 Like
Bad parenting?
7 Likes
Isn’t this thread proof that there’s been more than enough bad parenting in the world already?
6 Likes
9 Likes
Ok. Hmmm. Ok.
I am going to wade into a lion’s den here and defend the position that everyone here in the comments, and apparently on BB, disagrees with. It is now accepted as fact by the BB community that telling people - let’s face it, telling women - that they have SOME obligation to dress more modestly than is required by law is slut-shaming. Or that the fact that a woman is more likely to get attacked while she is drunk and half-naked at a party than when she is modestly dressed at an art gallery is victim blaming. In other words, that women have NO responsibility for reducing the level of sexism and sex-related violence perpetrated by men, other than, apparently, by testosterone-shaming men.
I will not defend the Duggars, nor any fundamentalist position that lectures women on their “sinful ways”, which I think is ridiculous, but is canon in certain streams of Christianity. Judaism and Islam also tell women that they should dress modestly in order to not arouse the passions of men; but there is a large difference between a) the fundamentalist position that men are animals, incapable of controlling themselves and therefore women are to blame for getting raped, and b) that a hyper-sexualized dress style by women contributes to both men and women viewing women more as objects than as people, and does not help bring about the kind of change in society that women are fighting for and deserve. (For what it’s worth, Judaism, at least, also lectures men about dress and acting lasciviously, but it’s generally less stressed and less necessary.)
Under no circumstances does this attitude deny that men are 100% responsible for their own actions: they are criminals if they act criminally, regardless of how a woman is dressed. That doesn’t mean that anyone should leave their door open when they leave the house, or wave a lot of cash around at night in a city street. It’s a denial of common sense to say that exposed female flesh doesn’t arouse men. Or that at least SOME (not even most, but some) bad things happen to women that wouldn’t if they acted and dressed more modestly.
Being “attractive”, “liberated”, and “free” are different things than being “sexual”, “exposed”, and “unconcerned by how you affect others”.
I don’t agree with the Duggar’s position, and I don’t agree with the fundamentalists in my religion. But I don’t agree that teaching people to be modest and concerned with how others react to out dress and behavior is “slut-shaming” or “victim blaming”. It’s morality. It may not be your morality. Don’t shame those who believe in it.
Sir, yes sir!!
1 Like
Dangit, beaten to it with almost the exact same idea.
What about using Little Smokies? The slider version of corn dogs?
My, you really did put a lot of effort into building that straw man!
18 Likes
So why don’t we work on fixing this part of telling men to control their urges as much as we work on asking women to dress less provocatively? Seems easier to ask people to take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, no?
For example, should I see someone dressed nicely on her way to a date, should I drop my jaw and whistle? Or should I think “She looks nice” and leave it at that? Which seems more appropriate? Because you seem to be of the opinion that her manner of dress is there to arouse men when it’s actually all up to her what it’s there for.
15 Likes
So it’s OK for you to believe that women should dress modestly so they don’t get raped, but it’s not OK for me to tell you that you are slut-shaming or victim-blaming because of your “morality”? Shame on you.
11 Likes
No argument here; in fact, men are MORE responsible and must be taught how to behave. As I said, I don’t support the fundamentalist position that shames women just for being women. But the OP and most of the commenters here equate teaching that “… young women who wear clothing that ‘excites’ a ‘man’s physical drives’” with “slut-shaming”, and that is too far to the other side.
1 Like
I know, right? And those curves, scents, come hither countenance and devil’s lip gloss! Think of the children.
7 Likes
