Activism Change

Smug parents.

Question:

Mike Given wrote: > Pumpkinhead wrote: > >http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/mating/10638/ > >[QUOTE] > [...] > >The hottest guy in the park is not the slender flappy-haired emo > >with the Martin guitar but the slender flappy-haired emo with > >the Maclaren stroller. > >[/QUOTE] >   That, OTOH, is completely inconsistent with my personal experience. > And FWIW, a Yamaha guitar works just as well as a Martin for my money, > though I fully admit I’m no "flappy-haired emo" (whatever the fuck > that’s supposed to mean).

I bet if you had a flappy-feathered emu, that would get some attention. Woman to man: "My, what a large emu you have. May I stroke it?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer/archives/2005/05/07/rise_of_the_… > >[QUOTE] > >’Before I had kids, I was a selfish bitch from hell.’ >   Heheheheh. Yah, okay – smoke another. > >The words of the fashion designer, Katharine Hamnett, in an > >interview published last week had a sort of alluring robustness. > >Luckily for the world – the story continued – she gave birth to > >two sons, thus unlocking her activism gene, allowing her to > >empathise with the planet and protect it for future generations. > >[/QUOTE] >   Sounds to me as if she’s just using her children to extend the range > of "selfish bitch from hell" under the pretense of "activism".  Like > Rosie whatsherface that was bitching about handgun ownership, but it > was okay for *her* bodyguard to carry one. >   Ms Hamnett has a different cause: She seems to be opposed to > clothing with chemicals in them.  And Tony Blair too, which is a > pretty much moot issue for at least a few years.  She touts her > earth-friendly lines of clothing, ostensibly as her contribution > toward saving the planet.  Which might be worthwhile, but chances are > that her designer clothing costs so damn much that only the > rich-n-famous will be making any significant contribution in that > regard – the rest of us poor slobs will have to wear our > chemical-laden knock-offs from KMart. > (Note: A quick price check shows that a Hamnett-designed ladies > sleeveless t-shirt goes for $40 US.) > Mikey (..apparently only rich people get to save the planet.)

The damage a person does to the planet has little to do with what sort of clothes he or she wears. Mostly it’s a function of how much he or she consumes in general. We might think of overpopulated Third-World countries as cesspools of squalor and ecological catastrophe—and they are—but the fact remains that the average baby born in the United States will consume as many resources and generate as much pollution over his/her lifetime as 30 average babies born in India. Really, the worst things a person can do for the planet are: 1. Be comfortable 2. Reproduce It’s fashionable for pseudo-environmentalists to focus on token issues such as the fur trade or genetically modified foods as a way to avoid having to confront the real issues and make any real sacrifices. A real environmentalist would, at a minimum, stop driving cars, and use only enough artificial heat in the winter to keep the water pipes from freezing. Anything less than that is merely window-dressing. — the Danimal

Response:

Pumpkinhead wrote: > I was just reading about film, About A Boy, in the TV guide.  It says: > "A shamelessly irresponsible London bachelor poses as a single parent in > order to meet sensitive women.  But when an oddball 12-year-old befriends > him as a result of his sham, the man and boy form an unlikely friendship > which changes both of their lives." > Is it really easier to meet a sensitive woman if you are a single

father? It’s easier to meet sensitive women if you’re Hugh Grant! I like that movie a lot. KC

Response:

I was just reading about film, About A Boy, in the TV guide.  It says: "A shamelessly irresponsible London bachelor poses as a single parent in order to meet sensitive women.  But when an oddball 12-year-old befriends him as a result of his sham, the man and boy form an unlikely friendship which changes both of their lives." Is it really easier to meet a sensitive woman if you are a single father?  I was watching a group of women debating on television.  They were complaining about people who think that having a child makes you a better person.  I wonder how many women out there think that a man with a child is somehow better than a man without a child because he has a child. I don’t need to have a child in order to be a better man.  And I don’t think a woman is a better woman just because she has a child. http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/mating/10638/ [QUOTE] But somehow in the past few years, with the baby panic, the IVF horror stories, celebrity-pregnancy chic, young families have become the new entitled class. Pregnant women look sexier than their svelte counterparts, and prenatal yoga beats ashtanga in cachet. The hottest guy in the park is not the slender flappy-haired emo with the Martin guitar but the slender flappy-haired emo with the Maclaren stroller. [/QUOTE] http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer/archives/2005/05/07/rise_of_the_… [QUOTE] ‘Before I had kids, I was a selfish bitch from hell.’ The words of the fashion designer, Katharine Hamnett, in an interview published last week had a sort of alluring robustness. Luckily for the world – the story continued – she gave birth to two sons, thus unlocking her activism gene, allowing her to empathise with the planet and protect it for future generations. [/QUOTE] 10 tell tale signs of smugness. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1479057,00.html

Response:

Pumpkinhead wrote: >Is it really easier to meet a sensitive woman if you are a >single father?

  Dunno – ain’t never been a single father.  Of the single dads I know of, precious few seem to be in search of a "sensitive woman". >I was watching a group of women debating on television.  They >were complaining about people who think that having a child >makes you a better person.

  "Better" than what, one wonders. >I wonder how many women out there think that a man with a >child is somehow better than a man without a child because >he has a child.

  Depends; I know a few single moms that tend towards men that’ve had children based on the sometimes-true notion that such men will be able to deal with their children as well.  Single women without children seem to tend to not care much one way or the other, IME, save that some might think that a man that’s able to care/provide for a child might be able to care/provide for a woman in somewhat the same fashion.  Most of the childless females I know don’t really believe that though. >I don’t need to have a child in order to be a better man.

  I don’t think I’d be all that better either, but it’s hard to tell since I haven’t the experience. >And I don’t think a woman is a better woman just because she has >a child.

  Depends on whatchyer lookin’ for. >http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/mating/10638/ >[QUOTE] [...] >The hottest guy in the park is not the slender flappy-haired emo >with the Martin guitar but the slender flappy-haired emo with >the Maclaren stroller. >[/QUOTE]

  That, OTOH, is completely inconsistent with my personal experience. And FWIW, a Yamaha guitar works just as well as a Martin for my money, though I fully admit I’m no "flappy-haired emo" (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean). >http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer/archives/2005/05/07/rise_of_the_… >[QUOTE] >’Before I had kids, I was a selfish bitch from hell.’

  Heheheheh. Yah, okay – smoke another. >The words of the fashion designer, Katharine Hamnett, in an >interview published last week had a sort of alluring robustness. >Luckily for the world – the story continued – she gave birth to >two sons, thus unlocking her activism gene, allowing her to >empathise with the planet and protect it for future generations. >[/QUOTE]

  Sounds to me as if she’s just using her children to extend the range of "selfish bitch from hell" under the pretense of "activism".  Like Rosie whatsherface that was bitching about handgun ownership, but it was okay for *her* bodyguard to carry one.     Ms Hamnett has a different cause: She seems to be opposed to clothing with chemicals in them.  And Tony Blair too, which is a pretty much moot issue for at least a few years.  She touts her earth-friendly lines of clothing, ostensibly as her contribution toward saving the planet.  Which might be worthwhile, but chances are that her designer clothing costs so damn much that only the rich-n-famous will be making any significant contribution in that regard – the rest of us poor slobs will have to wear our chemical-laden knock-offs from KMart. (Note: A quick price check shows that a Hamnett-designed ladies sleeveless t-shirt goes for $40 US.) Mikey (..apparently only rich people get to save the planet.)

Response:

Filed under: Activism

Related Posts

• Preacher Man and wife starve child to death
• 6/18/66 dallas tx, boy iso bm
• Death Penalty Facts disprove Irrational Vengeant Sadi
• Pictures of real virgin pussy! Real Hymen! 4767
• Israeli Helicopters Kill Two Hamas Activists In Gaza
• DNCB causes pathogenic inflammatory lesions
• The Judas Factor
• Three boys,(two 12 yo and one 11 yo) charges with sex crimes in rape of 9 year old girl.
• EVIDENCE: George and Ted are Busted!
• ***EMAIL PROCESSOR WANTED URGENTLY***