From Women’s Eyes

From women’s eyes this doctrine I derive:

They sparkle still the right Promethean fire;

They are the books, the arts, the academes,

That, show, contain and nourish all the world.

~Lord Berowne

This passage from the Fourth Act of Love’s Labour’s Lost encapsulates one thematic undercurrent of the play: the inspiration derived from women.

Hopefully the following articles will inspire inquiry and concern.Though their messages aren’t quite so esoteric as Berowne’s nor do the messages point to the humanities, but the reports do point to humanity and the humane. Both articles are disturbing and deserving of attention, for a look from women’s eyes:

 

The first comes from The Atlantic:

U.S. Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Mothers, and No One Knows Why

…the U.S. has some of the worst health outcomes among developed nations, lagging behind in key metrics like life expectancy, premature death rates, and death by treatable diseases, according to a July study in the Journal of the American Medicine Association.

For some Americans, the reality is far worse than the national statistics suggest. In particular, growing health disadvantages have disproportionately impacted women over the past three decades, especially those without a high-school diploma or who live in the South or West. In March, a study published by the University of Wisconsin researchers David Kindig and Erika Cheng found that in nearly half of U.S. counties, female mortality rates actually increased between 1992 and 2006, compared to just 3 percent of counties that saw male mortality increase over the same period.

“I was shocked, actually,” Kindig said. “So we went back and did the numbers again, and it came back the same. It’s overwhelming.”

Kindig’s findings were echoed in a July report from University of Washington researcher Chris Murray, which found that inequality in women’s health outcomes steadily increased between 1985 and 2010, with female life expectancy stagnating or declining in 45 percent of U.S. counties. Taken together, the two studies underscore a disturbing trend: While advancements in medicine and technology have prolonged U.S. life expectancy and decreased premature deaths overall, women in parts of the country have been left behind, and in some cases, they are dying younger than they were a generation before. The worst part is no one knows why.

 

Another apparent mystery:

Huge Spike in Poverty Among Elderly Women Catches Analysts by Surprise

The number of women over the age of 65 living in extreme poverty jumped by 18 percent last year after having held steady for most of the previous decade the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) reported Thursday.

There were 135,000 more elderly women living on less than $5,500 per year in 2012 than in 2011, pushing the total size of that group to 733,000. Put another way, there are more elderly women living on $15 per day than there are residents of Detroit, Michigan.

NWLC experts aren’t sure what caused the unexpected jump, though they told The Atlantic that it isn’t due to weakening private pension systems or general population aging. Those factors wouldn’t impact extreme poverty without also causing poverty in general to spike among the elderly and there was no such generalized increase in poverty among older Americans. “One factor might be cuts in recent years to Social Security Administration funding which may be making applications for [Supplemental Security Income] more difficult,” the NWLC’s Kate Gallagher Robbins told MSNBC.

Woman with Crossed Arms, Picasso’s Blue Period

 

Share:

Related Articles

36 thoughts on “From Women’s Eyes

  1. PJ,

    I would guess that a factor in all of this is that women are, disproportionately to men, on state Medicaid programs nationwide and our profit driven health care system responds inadequately to the care they need because of lower reimbursement rates.

  2. Yep.

    The Journal of the American Medical Association published an article in May entitled “The Role of Medicaid and Medicare in Women’s Health Care.” I think it confirms your observation. Here’s the intro:

    “This month’s Visualizing Health Policy provides information about the role of Medicaid and Medicare in women’s health care: the proportion of US women who are covered by Medicaid and Medicare; how women comprise the majority of those covered by the Medicaid and Medicare programs and the majority of those receiving long-term services and supports (such as home health care); how women on Medicaid are poorer and sicker than women with private coverage; how Medicaid is a primary payer for women’s reproductive health services; and how women on Medicare spend more than their male counterparts on medical care and also have higher rates of health problems and social challenges.”
    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1687586

    1. I would also guess that many elderly female ” boomers ” aren’t getting social security checks comparable to men due to less pay overall, and the failure of our society to recognize home making and child rearing as work.

      1. Yep again. The second article alludes to your point, and there are a plethora of studies pointing to your conclusions. Riane Eisler, author of The Real Wealth of Nations, has been on top of your latter point especially. A complicated resolution for a complex problem is definitely in order. Perhaps one way to look at it is breaking it down to manageable components. Consider it two-fold: at the “back” end, making workplace equality a reality while simultaneously reorganizing our thinking entirely with respect to homemaking, child rearing, and quality of life for all people. On the “front” end, acknowledging that a crisis situation for elderly women, today, exists.

        One aspect of Eisler that I find attractive is her incorporation of the very issues that you mention into how we measure GDP, how we transform what “economy” means so as to create what she envisions as a “caring economy.” Basically she takes an interdisciplinary approach. That approach is the one I hope to see evolve as convention within American political culture.

        I found The Real Wealth of Nations by just poking around at the library. It’s a pretty fast and easy read, pretty broad in its scope and written for the layman. If there’s any ideology to subscribe to it I might describe it as classically humanist, both practical and empirical in its trajectory. Not the be-all/end-all, but a good lens for viewing the key points that you revealed. It’s been quite a while since I read it, though.

        1. PJ,

          I kind of cheated. I took nine credits of Women’s Studies 25 years ago when I went back to college after a stint as an over the road trucker. A woman friend of mine suggested I read Mary Daly’s ” Beyond God the Father ” and I was fascinated and so took three courses. We read Eisler’s ” The Chalice and the Blade ” as part of my final class.

          At that time the issue of women unpaid for homemaking and childcare was probably more acute than now given that a lot of women stayed home during the fifties and ended up with no social security check by the time they were of retirement age.

          While I no longer call myself a feminist, I think equal pay and equal opportunity for women is long, long overdue.

  3. I love and respect all women; wife, mother, sister, daughter, friend, business associates. It is primary to my nature as a man.

    But it took my expertise as an accountant specializing in manufacturing costs to correct my earlier ignorance and recognize a woman’s diversity, adaptability, productivity, multitasking, in addition to talents of nurturing, teaching, social skills, and child bearing. It was on the all-female faucet assembly line. early in my career, where I found the ladies consistently outperformed the all-male production departments.

    I found the following interesting in explaining the differences, at least physically, between man and woman. http://drjamesdobson.org/Solid-Answers/Answers?a=ff773023-2693-410d-b9e1-662f6985be4e

    Vive la difference.

    1. Duane,

      🙂 Thanks for the link and for your insight. One skill I’d draw attention to – multitasking. I hadn’t thought about it before in terms of gender, but it makes sense given all the juggling women do in the home (child-rearing, care-taking) and between home and employment spheres. That said, however, I generally have a bad attitude when it comes to valuing “multi-tasking” as a positive or essential skill, especially in the workplace and education spheres. I’d have to look for the studies, but there’s plenty of research out there suggesting that multi-tasking really isn’t productive in the workplace and it isn’t conducive for the education of young minds. I’d classify multi-tasking as fallacious efficiency – superficially it makes sense and can be useful in small doses or when well-modulated, but overall not a systemically beneficial practice.

      Thank you for expressing with such boldness your love and respect for women as an aspect of your primary nature as a man. It’s not such an easy admission in American culture. I commend you. Thanks again for the link – absolutely fascinating.

      Vive la difference ~ Strength in Diversity

    1. Thanks for the link, Cat Kin. It does flesh out some of those silent and poorly understood factors that are playing into the matters addressed in the Atlantic article. One thing too I noticed from the map was the geographical distribution – illustrating a phenomena that is disproportionately gripping the South and West. Immediately what comes to mind there is that those are predominately “politically” conservative areas. Conservative on both sides of the political divide (cultural conservatism) suggestive of a negative outcome for women in locales which might be described as “saturated” with conservatism. That combined cultural-political conservatism, to my mind, directly impacts how women respond to untenable/unhealthy conditions – i.e. the rise in addiction-related behavior.

  4. Good post and PJ, I think this only gets worse. What if chained CPI goes back on the table? And don’t forget that even if the House’s draconian cuts to SNAP don’t get passed by the Senate, their bill cuts SNAP too. When do we start to see the effects of poor nutrition on children too? Look how Sen. Coburn wants to go after the one remaining safety net to the unemployed who no longer are eligible for payment – disability. I thought the govt official interviewed by CBS as a counterpoint to the soulless Coburn hit the nail on the head, “What are these people supposed to do? Go away and die quietly?” Guess that’s what the GOP wants at bottom, for the poor to just die. They have taken their Christianity into a post-Christ stage and openly worship mammon now.

  5. Emma,

    Absolutely agree with you on the Post-Christ stage of GOP Christianity. And yes, I do think the expectation (as ruthless and inhumane as it is) is to “go away and die quietly.” As long as the GOP is on one side of the “faux-negotiation table” chained CPI, SNAP, and “entitlement” cuts will be forced onto the table. If these are addressed outside of the extortion paradigm there might be hope for a less painful, temporary concession or even a bypassing altogether of these kinds of cuts. Temporary being the operative word here.

    While that impasse is underway continually stressing immediate need and also how we view the “safety net” once the impasse subsides – how we solidify dignity (legislatively) might be helpful. “Safety net” suggests temporary condition and that might be part of the conceptualization problem. I don’t know for certain if it’s possible to move beyond the idea of a negotiable “safety net” to a non-negotiable standard for dignified human existence for all people. I don’t know, but I do think there is a way.

    As a side note – if Vinehout and Burke team up (and I really hope they do) – the issues raised in the two articles above would be an incredible rallying point for women across the age spectrum. I think elderly women from the Greatest Generation who might be more traditionally inclined, possibly more inclined to vote for Walker, will implicitly understand how these dynamics operate.

      1. I really, really think you should each write a post next week exploring this team ticket idea, albeit with different teams. It’d be interesting to see how readers react to the concept and if other bloggers pick it up.

        1. Steve,

          I’d be interested in exploring Tom Nelson as one candidate within a potential ticket or any other combination of candidates. But Steve, I shouldn’t think that a team of two women would implicate it as a team which denies that men exist in Wisconsin, nor should this particular scheme be construed as a thorough endorsement of either Burke or Vinehout, but rather an endorsement for a cooperative rather than competitive approach to defeating Walker. Also as an endorsement for diversity within a ticket that would broaden appeal as a way to accommodate skeptical people like me. Given that Reince Priebus seems to be revisiting the culture war as the ideological center of the GOP I would think that an all-woman ticket would also be an interesting dynamic that could be a winning dynamic.

          1. One other request for either of you or any blogger on the site if I may, you might want to track a series Gannett Media WI is starting with their so-called investigative team (that team that printed the salaries of all public employees and called it investigative journalism) called Timber Trouble. See today’s Green Bay Press-Gazette or Appleton Post-Crescent for the preview article. Take a look at the language and how they are positioning the Forestry Service. Sounds pretty similar to me to the language being used out West to justify the crap deals being made over public lands. Media in NE Wisconsin is fully corporatized, if there are independent outlets here, I’d love to know about them. I’ve been wondering about this so-called investigative reporting team for some time as to who is feeding them their stories. After all, if you give a rip about the tax payers then the investigation should focus on CEO pay of corporations or businesses taking subsidies and getting tax breaks. The salary of a teacher nearing retirement is pennies compared to these hand out’s. Anyway, who makes out if more timber is pulled out of the Cheqamegon-Nicolet – well the mills might and who owns the mills? And maybe we point to the Fed’s and say they’re mismanaging everything. And throw in a laid off timber worker from Laona ( not very different from that Hurley road builder) to make it seem like this is all for working families… You see where I’m going. Too soon to tell but it seems to be there is the potential for a certain sort of story to be told just like in the printing of public employee salaries. Food for thought.

            1. Emma,

              I see where you’re going, but you’re way ahead of me! Steve may be in a better position to follow up, but I’ll take a look at it too.

        2. Well there’s an idea, Emma. I’d like to see what else Burke has to say about her candidacy, but I’d be willing.

        3. That combined cultural-political conservatism, to my mind, directly impacts how women respond to untenable/unhealthy conditions – i.e. the rise in addiction-related behavior.

          True. Imagine how hard it is for college girls who have nothing but their beauty and social acceptance to rely on, having to “trust in God,”…the last thing they really want…for their future well being. That’s a void that is very difficult to fill, even with gallons of spirits.

        4. Emma, the public will refuse to think of candidates in tandem. They will concentrate on the one which they think will benefit them the most and consider the other as auxiliary. So, while it may benefit to have two candidates from separate districts, separate philosophies not at all or not so much as to get a more serendipitous whole.

  6. Having brilliantly stated the problem, made educated guesses at the actual causes and congratulated everyone for their empathy and caring and thoughtfulness, time for practical solutions besides simply delegating this as another responsibility/job for women to rally together around, and to look after themselves and yank at their own bootstraps.

    Absolutely nothing here is a new problem, and the solutions have been around for decades.

    Some category cross-over but get creative as to selecting/mixing issues/priorities having largest immediate impact and initiate action:

    http://socialistparty-usa.net/platform.html

    No war but class war.

    1. Nonquixote, maybe get out, take a turn the fresh, autumn air (as I write this I’m looking out into beautiful golden woods), prepare a seasonal, WI meal for yourself and slowly savor it, pick up a great work of literature and let the words roll over you or just do something to cheer yourself up and dissipate the anger.

      1. Sorry you are reading anger, nothing I can do about that presumption on your part. Single dad here, raising a daughter and we just came in from picking apples, a few squash and a couple pumpkins. Took advantage of most of the morning, out of doors, passing storms (lightening) brought us in. Been on the front lines (schools, elderly parent and other aspects) with the whole above discussion, which I’m guessing others here, likely have been too.

        I suggested some ways to be moving to action and hadn’t seen any practical suggestions coming forth, not even a vague allusion. Suggestions seemed like a logical progression.

        1. Like anything it’s how you say it. So something like, PJ, really important story. What solutions would you suggest to alleviate growing elderly female poverty? And then you’d get a post back like I did that suggests we should stop calling it a social safety net and shift the baseline. Which is enough of an answer for me in this forum because the rest of the answer is the same as it is for SNAP, economic inequality, fair trade, etc – we need to get more Progressive politicians elected who don’t give two pins for the plutocrats and their bribes.

          1. How one says something, like your 12:34 pm. Great example for people to emulate./s

            I should have checked with PJ before saying something? Didn’t read that anywhere in the site rules. Followed his diary and the comments and didn’t have anything to say until I said something. Not OK with you apparently, because you had an answer for me and I forgot to ask you first. Mighty big of you.

            How about if I feel that suffering progressives any longer is passe and electing more of them falls entirely short of affecting any meaningful change toward equality and justice?

            IMHO there are no progressive politicians who don’t give two pins for the plutocrats and their money. Not the particular link I was searching for but this one comes close.

            http://open.salon.com/blog/libbyliberalnyc/2012/11/29/election_2012_–_us_faux-progressives_chose_fascism

            More progressive action enabling fascism:

            http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/11/what-obama-has-wrought/

            Sorry for not replying sooner, we are cooking applesauce.

            1. Ah, NQ; your ever-acerbic acid-backed tongue lusciously lashes languidly yet again. A lovely corrosive lullaby to lull us all. Thank you, Malicious. Emma has given you some insight. With any luck you will take it to heart. Your commentary is corrosive; you subtract more than add to discussion. Until you can contain your toxicity perhaps you should just get out and regroup. If you are genuinely unaware of how acidic you are, you might ponder what is important to you when you comment. But you know as well as I do that Emma hasn’t presumed anything and that you are responsible for your own commentary. Making excuses for your inexcusable behavior is no excuse. Sorry.

              I shall assume you will remain, in which case – perhaps what you missed here is the empirical rather than intuitive element revealed in the two articles. You might elaborate on your contradictory assertion. The research clearly contains unknowns, but since you do know, what logically might have followed your observation is what precisely you know. If your intent was honest discussion. Without elaboration your comment contains no meaningful critique or any suggestion for addressing the matter at hand. You succeed only in your obligatory jab. Jab to your heart’s content. You are perfectly free to “get creative” with suggestions. You haven’t. My intent was precisely what you described – to draw attention to the problem. I didn’t offer solutions preferring instead to leave those to the ensuing discussion. And so you’re clear, NQ, I’m treating discussion as conversation.

              Might I suggest you offer specific policy positions devised by the Socialist Party specifically applied to any of the issues revealed in either article. As is you’re engaging in nothing more than antagonistic propagandism and you’re dribbling into the insensible realm of simplistic reactionary. What a surprise. You probably shouldn’t try “IMHO” if your “O” isn’t “H” and clearly it isn’t. And you’d do well to remember that humility doesn’t convey credibility. Nice that you despise progressives and democrats (I’m sure that comes as a shocking surprise to all). How about this – are there any Socialist solutions – proximate solutions – actionable solutions – you can offer for these issues pertaining to women in American society? If not, maybe get out the way so others can creatively brainstorm toward solutions. If not, maybe get out of the way so those whose minds aren’t as tightly canned as yours have the opportunity to sort through their own experiences, opinions, and intuition. Your incessant hostility disallows the free exchange of ideas. Making applesauce doesn’t seem to help. Maybe switch to freshly baked bread if you need to knead. It’s really quite helpful for contemplation.

              Good luck and looking forward to Socialist solutions rather than Socialist obstruction and propagandism.

              1. Your paragraph 1, PJ

                I know what I know, and you can imagine you know what you I am thinking, all that you wish to, but you are simply practicing the fine art of gratuitous bloviation in voicing your thoughts here as fact.

                Your paragraph 2, PJ

                That you cannot or will not fathom the small praise offered in my first sentence at 11:40am is not my problem. I had stated said that few solutions had been offered, but, I never claimed that you had needed to offer any solutions. Then you say above, “I didn’t offer solutions preferring instead to leave those to the ensuing discussion.” which is exactly what I did and you are immediately complaining about it, after the fact. WTF?

                Your paragraph 3

                You are going to suggest whatever the F you want, far be it from me to say you shouldn’t. Hint, I am not obligated to comment or respond in any manner you deem necessary or appropriate, nor to respond to your comments, ever. I can offer a definition of progressives and democrats different from the norm and it appears only you are taking it as a personal affront in claiming that I despise said groups for having introduced it here. You claimed I despise these groups (more mind reading apparently), I didn’t say that, I offered a view stated in the link provided. Glad you read it, PJ.

                So, your defense of your intellectual political position here, or some kind of perverted inferiority complex is to launch derogatory personal character attacks instead of examining the new thought presented. When have we not seen this before? A new take about an issue and you apparently cannot look at it as a real topic and an opportunity for expanding the conversation you claim right here that you want. I put up the link to the socialist party platform and left it to readers, whom I deem entirely bright enough to have a peek (if they are curious) and see if there was anything that kick-started anyone’s gray cells. Far be it from me to proselytize about socialistic thought. Apparently suggesting the S platform as a means of I am a die-hard believer. Ridiculous conclusion there PJ. One action doesn’t necessarily demand the your interpretation as a given outcome.

                330 some odd words and not one personal attach on your character PJ. Kindly read the site policy before you respond to me again.

                1. nonquixote,

                  You can continue chasing your own circularity all you please. You and I are not engaged in debate, I have therefore offered no defense for anything. I haven’t asked anything of you other than to contribute Socialist solutions to the matter at hand given the link you generously provided. If you offered me small praise I didn’t recognize it. I thank you for the compliment.

                  Contrary to your assertion, I have recognized your attempt at a new take and I have asked you to expand the conversation per that take – I have asked for your Socialist ideas. I have not attacked you personally. I’m drawing attention to your intense negativity which IMHO has exceeded maliciousness. I have drawn attention to the impact of your commentary which is corrosive and ill. You can choose to disregard feedback the blog community gives you or you can think on that feedback.

                  I’ve reviewed the comment policy. I recommend you pay close attention to the following:

                  #2 – “We will never censor comments based on the political or ideological point of view they espouse. However, we reserve the right to moderate, edit or delete any comments that are abusive, libelous, off-topic, use excessive foul language, or that are indecent.”

                  In my opinion, your commentary is abusive and off-topic more often than not.

                  #3 – “If a commenter posts comments that are abusive, libelous, off-topic, use excessive foul language or that are indecent, we reserve the right to remove the comments and/or ban the commenter’s Internet Protocol (IP) address.

                  In my opinion, your commentary is abusive and off-topic more often than not.

                  #5 – “If a specific commenter engages in a pattern of abusive, libelous, or off topic comments, said commenter will be given one warning. If the behaviors continue, that commenter will then be prohibited from posting comments in the future.”

                  In my opinion, you have established a pattern of abusive, off topic comments.

                  I will make the same suggestion you made to me, and with an addition: I recommend that prior to responding to me or to anyone else you seriously contemplate what you are trying to achieve with the comment. If you do choose to address my comments or my posts, I will welcome your voice, your perspective, and your take providing you can curb your hostility.

                  Now, are you interested in discussing the matter at hand?

                  Do you have any specific Socialist policy solutions for the spike in poverty among elderly women or why women in the United States are dying younger than their mothers?

          2. EmmaR, (attempting to remember the comment that was glitched off the thread yesterday.)

            Not one to view problems in a vacuum, I offered the SP platform as a source of rich ideas and potential solutions, keeping in mind your earlier elections strategy comment (not sure whether you were being humorous, sarcastic or serious, so have reserved any judgement) about old white men being too stayed in their thinking. Then, I had offered the faux-progressive link in recalling your entreaties about everyone needing engagement in serious self-examination, here pointing to their personal responsibility for the election outcome being part of our current problems within this thread topic (who should be taking responsibility for election of our present fascist-in-chief, free press denier, drone-kill king, corporate profits above people and environment, whore).

            Solutions like seriously cutting military spending (SP platform and elsewhere) could provide right now the means for funding at more than adequate levels, the feeding, clothing, educating and providing shelter for every man woman and child in this country along wages to employ millions to get to work on our infrastructure. Solid investments in people and learning and structures which would have decades long paybacks to the public good, besides immediate relief to those suffering now.

            Though one BB commenter frequently insists on dissecting the twig of a single branch of a lone tree, to the exclusion of the whole forest, I see that as having only so much actual value toward solving problems.

            From Harriet Tubman (paraphrasing): “I helped to free over a thousand slaves during my life, and could have helped another thousand had they only realized that they were slaves.”

            1. nonquixote,

              First, you are off topic. Your generalized solutions are sufficiently diffuse to function as obfuscation in the way that you’ve presented them. Your attempt to connect those solutions is appreciated, but how you’ve attempted is rationalization, not rationalism, rendering your apology irrational. You’ve still utilized those solutions in such a way to bypass the topic at hand in order to pivot to your favorite topic – President Barack Obama. Making your view, once again, a vacuum view. Making your commentary, once again, off topic. If you perennially return to your favorite topic of President Barack Obama then you might ponder upon which BB commenter “insists on dissecting the twig of a single branch of a lone tree, to the exclusion of the whole forest.” You’ve provided an accurate description of your own commentary. Moreover, the Green Lantern Theory couched in your redundancy can only be viewed as “vacuum view.”

              If you are to link to pages discussing American fascism it is incumbent upon you to connect those pages to the topic at hand. You’ve not done that. You’ve utilized those pages to pivot FROM the topic. Until you do connect those pages to the topic at hand your commentary is irrationally constructed and propagandist.

              You’ve offered excellent ideas that would apply to any topic at all. Are you able to apply those solutions to the topic at hand? The topic at hand is women’s heath and women’s poverty. Until you do address women’s health and women’s poverty the vagueness of your diffusion functions solely as obscurantist. The topic at hand is not Barack Obama; the topic at hand is women’s health and poverty. One way you could pivot from your favorite subject to the topic at hand is to discuss how Barack Obama has addressed women’s issues during his two terms. Has Barack Obama ever addressed women’s issues in his agenda?

              Finally, have you ever considered the possibility that in absence of remaining on nearly any topic posed, you’ve saturated the pages of Blogging Blue with your single-minded vitriolic epithets against the president? Have you ever considered the possibility that there are quite a lot of people critical of the president but might find your particular brand of nastiness singularly offensive on another level and hence do not and will not read this blog? You’ve now deemed the president a whore and you’ve implied that he is slaver or slave-owner. Have you considered the possibility that this association might be acutely offensive to a great number of people, and you just may have single-handedly driven them away from this blog? Or do THOSE people not matter? How THOSE people interpret what you write doesn’t matter?

        1. I agree on limited usefulness of this type of discussion, and have never had difficulty and certainly prefer face to face discussion, Duane12. I see I am surrounded by comments which I have thus far ignored other than scrolling by them (a lot of effort it seems has been needlessly expended by someone who previously declared me persona non grata).

          I do like EmmaR’s take on things, just want to try to understand the nuances as best as possible and to reiterate; there’s no war but class war.

          1. NQ,

            I give you attention when what you say and how you say it are deserving attention. And as you should recall, you nullified persona non grata. My last comment to you was an appeal for you to consider the impact of your vitriol – whom you might be alienating and why with the hope that you will consider more carefully the construction of your commentary due to the potential damage you do for the readership of this blog. And for what sake? Your own it would seem.

            Your selective use of nasty jabbing and then choosing not to be obligated to reply when you are confronted is the pattern of a propagandist flinging inflammatory opinion, a methodical pattern which you continually utilize to justify your irrationalism. Unfortunately, meaningful exchange of ideas doesn’t occur under the toxic conditions you engender nor does it occur at your whimsy and solitary will. You can treat this forum as a face to face discussion any time you choose. You do not.

            The bigotry underlying your comments really shouldn’t go ignored any longer. You can choose to ignore that your unacknowledged bigotry alienates and drives people away, but I’m not going to ignore it, and I’m not going to try to dance around it any longer. You are responsible for your comments. Any comment you post here is open for critique is it not? Rest assured I won’t be ignoring you. I’ll be paying very close attention to the selective imprecision and selective obligation that is your modus operandi for legitimizing your bigotry.

Comments are closed.