Don't you think the title is a bit misleading? Blaming mothers for environmental factors that are largely unavoidable is a little unfair. Mom's are hard enough on themselves as it is and tomorrow is Mother's Day for Pete's sake. How about we cut mom some slack and put the blame where it's due: toxins in our environment.
Any material, any material at all, that is small enough to inhale has the potential to be hazardous to the lungs including causing scarring and cancer. It's not what the material is made of that is the problem, it's the size of the particles. Even common sand is dangerous for that reason.
Wow, could they be more biased and sexist? Since when do we define enjoying computer games, science-fiction memorabilia and junk food as masculine? I enjoy all those things and I know a lot of other women who enjoy them as well. The inference is that women who DO enjoy those things are masculine and therefore abnormal. It's ignorance like that that pushes women away from the sciences.
I loved science and technology and I wanted to love math but the teachers I had made me feel excluded and unwanted in those fields. As a woman I often feel that way around men now, not because their maleness is intimidating but because their attitude is. I don't want to stereotype all men, obviously there are men who treat women with respect regardless of the occasion or situation, but a lot of guys treat women interested in math/science/technology/gaming as if we're either to ignorant to really understand it or some sort of rarity like an albino deer.
Women will get involved in these fields more when they don't feel excluded, oppressed, disregarded and under appreciated. In other words, when we're treated with as much respect as the men in the room.
We don't have an animal overpopulation problem, we have a human undereducation problem. A few years ago we moved out into the desert to a little town near Death Valley so my husband could work at the navy base. The town has one tiny animal shelter, two vets and one animal rescue. It also had a huuuuge number of stray and feral cats. Many of these cats congregated around our apartment complex and we'd often feed them (we ended up rescuing four of them, one who was pregnant and as a result we have 12 cats). We tried to work with the shelter, rescue and vets to set up a Trap-Neuter-Release program because not only were the cats dying in the 120 degree heat, they were being eaten by the wolves and they caused a fair amount of car accidents and property damage. But the local government wouldn't allocate any funds. The problem was that folks out in the middle of nowhere get lonely. So people working at the Navy base would adopt cats and dogs and then when they left in a couple years they'd dump them outside and move away. The local mindset was that 'cats are wild animals, they can survive outside on their own' and 'Neutering causes mental and emotional problems'. The issue here is that HUMAN BEINGS aren't educated about how to take care of animals, the need to spay/neuter and most importantly that animals are NOT disposable. When we adopt animals we have a responsibility to them just as we do to our children.
I don't mind the chocolate milk as long as that's what it actually is. Are the ingredients low-fat milk, chocolate and a small amount of sugar? Or is it a bunch of fillers, chemicals, chocolate 'flavor' and tons of sugar? Not all chocolates are equal. I eat a piece of organic dark chocolate every single day but I wouldn't touch a Hershey bar with a ten foot pole. A chocolate milk does not a fat kid make. What's important is the quality of the food and the overall diet.
I think this view of Disney princesses is a bit simplistic as many people have already suggested. I've always enjoyed fairy tales (both the Disney versions and the originals) as well as alternative tellings and little known tales that are rarely seen anymore. I enjoy them because they are a bit of escapist fantasy. On the other hand I won't be exposing my kids to them (Disney or original) until they're old enough to understand that this really is an unrealistic fantasy and not something to aspire to.
If you have a strong stomach I'd recommend looking up the original stories, which were passed down orally, not to entertain children but to teach them serious life lessons about societal standards, political scheming, incest and rape, slavery, brutality and survival. I think most people would be surprised how graphic and scary the original stories were and how little emphasis was put on how fabulous it would be to be a princess/prince. Because it wasn't. While it was probably a far cry better than being a peasant in terms of food and shelter, princes and especially princesses were little more than property, had very few personal freedoms and had to deal with all the same dangers as a peasant child.
I think my perspective on this may be a bit different because I'm a young woman (almost 30) suffering from infertility due to PCOS which lead to endometrial cancer. I've been trying to have a child for five years and will likely have to have a hysterectomy in the near future.
For folks with infertility problems hearing 'Why don't you just adopt?' is a big slap in the face. I'd adopt a baby (or even an older child) today if I could but adoption is a very lengthy, emotionally difficult and expensive process. And while I think adoption is a wonderful choice, one we plan to try even if we do manage to have a child, it's undeniable that most folks have a hardwired drive to have their own genetic child and experience pregnancy. I hardly think that's selfish or unreasonable.
I think people often don't think of all the ramifications of infertility, especially the removal of your uterus and ovaries. Besides dealing with the medical, financial and emotional issues that come with infertility, you often have to deal with the underlying medical condition causing the infertility and all the hassle of being refused treatment for a medical condition not covered by insurance. If you lose your uterus and ovaries or they cease to function it isn't just a matter of fertility, your reproductive organs do more than make babies. Without my ovaries I'll cease to produce vital hormones which will cause me to go into an extreme form of menopause at the age of 29. This causes all sorts of serious health risks including bone loss, increased risk of heart disease and increased risk of various cancers, etc.
So please, before you criticize such a procedure, ask yourself if you can really understand infertility if you've never experienced it and how you would feel physically and psychologically if you lost your reproductive organs. Ask yourself if perhaps there are broader medical reasons for having the procedure than simply wanting to have a child.
For what it's worth, I probably wouldn't have this procedure done myself. It would likely not be covered by insurance (which is just horrible), it would likely be as expensive and risky as adoption. That said, just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean I think it should be denied to other women.
I was surprised that impalement didn't make the list. Vlad The Impaler anyone? Days of suffering the most excruciating pain possible in the full view of the world surrounded by rotting corpses. How did that not make the list? Or what about being pulled in half by animals/weights/vehicles? Sounds pretty awful to me. I imagine being eaten alive would also be pretty horrible.
The titles allusion to incest is in poor taste in my opinion. If this was College Humor I wouldn't be surprised but I'd like to think Neato is a little classier. Not a huge problem in the grand scheme of things I admit, but disturbing and inappropriate to me all the same.
My husband is a chemist and says: "Inhaling any particulate is a bad idea. Any inhaled particulate (like sand, sugar, glitter etc) will create micro-cuts in your lungs which over time can lead to a whole host of health problems, even cancer. Which is why all those kids snuffing pixie sticks and crushed smartees are in for a nasty surprise. Not to mention the irritants like acid (which you'll find in most candy including cocoa powder) which will settle in your lungs leading to all sorts of bacterial and fungal infections. The only thing you should be inhaling is air."
I loved science and technology and I wanted to love math but the teachers I had made me feel excluded and unwanted in those fields. As a woman I often feel that way around men now, not because their maleness is intimidating but because their attitude is. I don't want to stereotype all men, obviously there are men who treat women with respect regardless of the occasion or situation, but a lot of guys treat women interested in math/science/technology/gaming as if we're either to ignorant to really understand it or some sort of rarity like an albino deer.
Women will get involved in these fields more when they don't feel excluded, oppressed, disregarded and under appreciated. In other words, when we're treated with as much respect as the men in the room.
If you have a strong stomach I'd recommend looking up the original stories, which were passed down orally, not to entertain children but to teach them serious life lessons about societal standards, political scheming, incest and rape, slavery, brutality and survival. I think most people would be surprised how graphic and scary the original stories were and how little emphasis was put on how fabulous it would be to be a princess/prince. Because it wasn't. While it was probably a far cry better than being a peasant in terms of food and shelter, princes and especially princesses were little more than property, had very few personal freedoms and had to deal with all the same dangers as a peasant child.
For folks with infertility problems hearing 'Why don't you just adopt?' is a big slap in the face. I'd adopt a baby (or even an older child) today if I could but adoption is a very lengthy, emotionally difficult and expensive process. And while I think adoption is a wonderful choice, one we plan to try even if we do manage to have a child, it's undeniable that most folks have a hardwired drive to have their own genetic child and experience pregnancy. I hardly think that's selfish or unreasonable.
I think people often don't think of all the ramifications of infertility, especially the removal of your uterus and ovaries. Besides dealing with the medical, financial and emotional issues that come with infertility, you often have to deal with the underlying medical condition causing the infertility and all the hassle of being refused treatment for a medical condition not covered by insurance. If you lose your uterus and ovaries or they cease to function it isn't just a matter of fertility, your reproductive organs do more than make babies. Without my ovaries I'll cease to produce vital hormones which will cause me to go into an extreme form of menopause at the age of 29. This causes all sorts of serious health risks including bone loss, increased risk of heart disease and increased risk of various cancers, etc.
So please, before you criticize such a procedure, ask yourself if you can really understand infertility if you've never experienced it and how you would feel physically and psychologically if you lost your reproductive organs. Ask yourself if perhaps there are broader medical reasons for having the procedure than simply wanting to have a child.
For what it's worth, I probably wouldn't have this procedure done myself. It would likely not be covered by insurance (which is just horrible), it would likely be as expensive and risky as adoption. That said, just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean I think it should be denied to other women.