I'm not even sure what your point is. Yeah I'd rather sleep with a dakimakura of my waifu Renge-chan than with some random 3D slut but that doesn't mean I'm desperate, it's the opposite, it implies that I have standards.
People like this have such a weird view of how the world works, like they must think everyone is this powerless agent floating around just being acted on by forces outside anyone's control.
Just like, don't volunteer? If you need to "volunteer" in order to get your food stamps then you aren't really volunteering, you're doing it in exchange for indirect payment. It's very likely this volunteer-for-foodstamps thing coexists with all these volunteer jobs at public services like the police and fire department by design. Also some people just want to volunteer at stuff, and the reason a lot of them are women is because they probably don't want to take on a full-time career.
Also imagine being upset that wineries and organic farms other resort-industries attract volunteers. Some people have fun "working" (probably doing some fun easy job) on a farm. Are we supposed to feel bad for people who want to get paid doing something that's so fun that hipsters from the city are willing to do it for free?
Also some people just want to volunteer at stuff, and the reason a lot of them are women is because they probably don't want to take on a full-time career.
Or, because they are privileged enough to have someone who supoorts their "passion". Which often means some dude dying inside in a cubicle job.
Its offensive because women are losing bbn out on rich husbands while more and more men become traps to be be better than women at supportive relationships. So now these women have to work alongside busy homebodies with ample free time.
men become traps to be better than women at supportive relationships
Hey now, we all appreciate the bussy master race but let's be real here. Traps have a severe mental illness and a voluntary hormone imbalance. They're just as crazy as real women, the sex is just better.
Which often means some dude dying inside in a cubicle job.
Psh, that's nothing. Full-time mommies are chefs, chauffeurs, teachers, cleaners, babysitters, daycare workers, craftswomen, musicians, AND doctors! For no money! And in addition some of them work hard labor as volunteers! Have some respect.
(is a different person from the person who you're replying to) I wouldn't record anything, I do desperately want to know in case of an off chance that there's some kind of "in" for me, but I did Google you and find that time you posted gussy to r/trashy. I didn't judge you for gussy posting, but I did judge you a bit for posting to r/trashy all coy-like instead of just posting to gw like an actual trashy person would.
If a chef spends 2 hours making a meal for 3 people they're not worth $5 / hour.
chauffeurs
Minimum wage + tips.
teachers
A teacher handles a class of 20 on an easy day.
cleaners
Once again, yeah sure. But a minimum wage cleaner can do waaaaaay more.
babysitters
So's a TV. Or a high school student. Or a labrador.
daycare workers
Daycare workers look after 4 babies, or like 10 kids.
craftswomen
WTF?
musicians
Singing to entertain a small child is more the purview of clowns than musicians. Not to denigrate clowns.
AND doctors
I'm pretty sure putting on a bandaid is at best the job of a nurse. Simple procedures and triage is the job of a nurse. And you don't see a triage nurse for their "kiss it better" skills, but because they actually know what the fuck they're doing.
powerless agent floating around just being acted on by forces outside anyone's control.
Nobody has ever been able to propose a way in which humans actually have free will and aren't just subject to interactions between their genes and environment.
This argument is for idiots who don't understand that using the term 'biology' or 'genetics' in place of 'soul' or 'will' leads us nowhere new and is simply a sneaky way to disavow guilt
There is a big problem with companies using volunteers/'unpaid interns' as free labor in exchange for 'experience' and 'exposure' and it's really fucked up. That said, the people in that thread are idiots. The complainer is essentially getting food money in exchange for doing the easiest work imaginable, a lot of those 'volunteers' she's getting angry for are volunteering because they have the luxury to sit at home all day on someone else's dime and need something to do (or are retired or a teenager trying to get some service hours in). And volunteers at places like farms and wineries get a share of the produce which is why they volunteer there to begin with.
Probably because more women volunteer. But that's because more women have the time and motivation to volunteer because many women don't work and are bored so it's a bullshit complaint.
when i was looking for work i found a company that wanted people to work in their business, which was selling stuff online for free, for full time, not getting paid. they mostly targeted immigrants. they gave a bullshit advice about it being work experience to put on your resume. in the interview i pretty much laughed and said i'm not working full time for free.
it's pretty fucking weird that even exists, but i can't imagine being dumb enough to actually do it.
it's pretty fucking weird that even exists, but i can't imagine being dumb enough to actually do it.
Wow, that one's pretty bad. I could see someone doing it if they had a huge gap on their resume and/or no references, but otherwise wow. At that point you may as well just rope a friend into pretending that they were your employer at McDonalds or something.
i did some research on the place on i asked people if they knew anything about it in forums for my city. turns out they are a free labor scam. they basically claim they want to help people put references on their resume and get jobs, but they actively stop the people getting jobs and try to keep them there as long as possible.
also i'm guessing that references from a scam company are pretty useless anyway.
A couple of years ago they tried to have the "Day Without Women," it was so difficult for me to convince other women not to volunteer on that day. I was like HEY!!! Y'all know we are trying to show them how much work we do for free, if you volunteer you're missing the whole point of the day!
How can these "women" try to liberate their own fellow sisters when they can't even understand their values and lines of reasoning?
These comments give me the confidence to know that I'm doing the right thing by accepting the NEET lifestyle, since the workforce doesn't need me anyway :) Felt guilty about it for too long, ty all
Why is Sandi Toksvig employed at all. Is just because she's upper class, gay, and european? She's got all the humor and talent of dead hippo that shat itself.
If she's not deported after Brexit, we'll know that the UK has no hope.
if you are single with no dependents you're required to work 20 hours a week at least to qualify, but if you make more than 1200 a month you're considered to make too much to qualify. which, unless you work 20 hours a week for less than minimum wage, is pretty hard to do. they're trying to change it so that insurance benefits will work the same way, too.
i'm sure it's the same for women as well but minorities, immigrants and single mothers with dependents all get benefits almost without question. the female privilege part of my post was just a joke for the record, i think everybody should be able to get SOME kind of help when they need it regardless.
if you are single with no dependents you're required to work 20 hours a week at least to qualify, but if you make more than 1200 a month you're considered to make too much to qualify. which, unless you work 20 hours a week for less than minimum wage, is pretty hard to do. they're trying to change it so that insurance benefits will work the same way, too.
Wow, that sucks. Sounds like a good way to create a welfare trap. Though what happens if somebody's looking for employment without an unemployment package or savings? Sounds like they're screwed.
i'm sure it's the same for women as well but minorities, immigrants and single mothers with dependents all get benefits almost without question.
How do you know? I hear people saying this all the time, but aside from WIC and some temporary training/assistance programs for visa lottery winners, I've never heard of a government law or program that makes it easier for women without dependents, immigrants, and minorities to get welfare. Is it just that these groups are more likely to qualify for the 'less than 1200/month' thing or that they have their own programs or that they can just go up to the government and be like 'hey I'm not working pay me' or what?
the paperwork i got basically said in various ways that single people without dependents who are not immigrants on working visas or otherwise aren't eligible for food stamps programs anymore, and the meeting they brought us in on had explained very specifically that unless we had kids, were on some kind of disability or otherwise disadvantaged we were no longer eligible unless they fulfilled the working requirements.
also the less than 1200 was for my specific case, it varies depending on things like, again, dependents you can claim, marital status, etc. etc. kinda like how taxes work i guess. i honestly don't know much about it.
and yeah the area i'm in is pretty famously a shitty welfare trap, i'm not going into specifics because lol location info on the internet but it's kind of a shithole.
unless we had kids, were on some kind of disability or otherwise disadvantaged we were no longer eligible unless they fulfilled the working requirements.
That doesn't really sound like it benefits minorities aside from the fact that some minority groups are more likely to be on work visas or single with kids. The immigrant thing seems sketchy, but people shipped in on H1Bs make something like 60k or 90k minimum, so I guess they're talking about immigrants with green cards, but immigrants with green cards are there to work so perhaps there's some sort of stipulation about them being between jobs. Plus they have to have been in the country legally for a minimum of 5 years to receive SNAP benefits. As for 'otherwise disadvantaged', if that was really written there and didn't have any form of explanation as to what that means, I doubt that would cover being a woman or minority because somebody could get into a shitton of trouble for discriminating based on race, and knowing some 'client-facing' workers in positions like these, they tend to be extremely jaded and even pretty racist themselves because they have to deal with the underclass day in and day out. I'm pretty sure deciding who gets what EBT benefits is decided by some sort of algorithm or formula where race or gender doesn't directly factor in (except in the case of pregnant women).
and yeah the area i'm in is pretty famously a shitty welfare trap, i'm not going into specifics because lol location info on the internet but it's kind of a shithole.
That sucks. It's a shame so many communities can't sustain themselves without government support anymore.
immigrants with green cards are there to work so perhaps there's some sort of stipulation about them being between jobs
What do you mean? Green cards give you what's known as "permanent residency", and it's not conditional on work like H1B visas are, although you're allowed to work with them.
Also, I know that it depends on the state and city, but the "racial minorities get benefits without question" is definitely not true for my city, which is pretty blue, so, I don't know, it doesn't seem like something political. I know for a fact that if you don't meet the income requirements anymore, they won't approve your recertification, regardless of your status as a racial minority.
On top of that, this is what it says on the application next to the question asking about race:
Please tell us [name of applicant]'s race and/or ethnicity. This information is voluntary, you don't have to answer this question if you don't want to, but if not completed, the interviewer may have to record by observation. Your answers will not be used to make a decision about your benefits. This information is used to assure that program benefits are distributed without regard to race, color, or national origin.
What do you mean? Green cards give you what's known as "permanent residency", and it's not conditional on work like H1B visas are, although you're allowed to work with them.
My bad, I confused them with those temporary work visas they give out, but they wouldn't be eligible for benefits of any kind. I was trying to make sense of the idea that immigrants are eligible for benefits over citizens/permanent residents.
I know for a fact that if you don't meet the income requirements anymore, they won't approve your recertification, regardless of your status as a racial minority.
On top of that, this is what it says on the application next to the question asking about race:
Yeah, I think that would be straight-up illegal regardless of the state you live in, but I could be wrong. The idea that welfare is given to minorities preferentially seems to be pretty wide-spread and it's annoying.
i mean i was just shitposting so i'm sure you know more about it than i do but the system in my area is kinda rigged in weird shitty ways, against all kinds of people who need help
I'm sure you're right because the American welfare system is absolute shit, I just don't think that the system directly benefits minorities over white people. It definitely offers a lot more benefits to women tho.
i didn't bother explaining why because if your first instinct is to think someone is trying to game the system, nothing i say will convince you otherwise.
Welfare is not for men. I have experience in social services and most of it is allotted for women and children, men need not apply. That's why 80% of homeless people are men.
This is really interesting, what other unexpected businesses use volunteers?
â
Fire Department, Doctors, even heard of some places that appear to be standard retail operations but are actually staffed by volunteers as the store itself exists as a nonprofit.
Is this retarded bitch talking about thrift stores?
I skimmed the source editorial. They didn't even attempt to prove that the economy "runs on women's unpaid work". And all /u/FuzzyFakeFur can come up with is public sector volunteer work. Omg the police department would literally fall apart without women volunteers handling the nonemergency calls from seniors!
They didn't even attempt to prove that the economy "runs on women's unpaid work".
The idea is that usually women end up doing domestic labor in their household or family, which is obviously unpaid. Not sure what they think the solution is, though. If you want women to get paid for their labor then encourage them to join the workforce and split the domestic duties with their partners. If they don't want to do join the workforce then they've actively chosen to not get paid. Though making daycare more accessible and/or mandating paid parental leave would be a huge step forward because in a lot of these cases it's more economical for the woman to stop working because daycare costs almost as much as or more than her income, so why bother slaving away in some shitty job just to pay for someone else to look after your kids. There's no excuse after the kids are in school tho unless there are special circumstances.
Not everybody wants to spend all of their time keeping their eyes plastered to an infant and/or works a shitty job. Women should at least have the option to continue working if that's what works best. Not to mention that the cost of daycare in the USA is astronomical and one of the things that prevents some people from even having kids; even if they're making a decent wage it's unaffordable in some places.
Why do people think outsourcing ones children is a step up in life?
Because some people, women included, want to have a career. The idea of the woman as a 'stay at home mom' who dedicates all of her time to raising a kid is only a few decades old. Previously, children were looked after in large part by family members, community members, and other children because there was a lot to do in the household and community in order to survive. With modern amenities, that work has been reduced, and the only thing that stay-at-home mothers have to do with their time is interact with their kids and do some basic errands. It's not healthy for the mother because her entire identity is centered around the kid, and it's not healthy for the kid because the mother's complete devotion to the kid can lead to neurosis and cause her to react negatively or overbearingly once the kid becomes more independent. Not to mention that the alienation of the mother and full fixation on a task that has no consequence to anyone but her family can cause mental health issues to arise or resurface, which can obviously negatively impact the child and family. And then once the kid is in school the mother's twiddling her thumbs for 8 hours a day in an empty house or trying to enter the workforce with a massive resume gap. The whole thing is ridiculous. It might work for some families, but in those cases the woman's biggest aspiration in life but to be a mother and/or she is a parasite who wants to spend the vast majority of her life sitting on her ass watching Netflix on someone else's dime. Because that's what the vast majority of SAHMs do after their kids are in school. At that point it is a completely meaningless role.
I don't have kids but yeah fucking right, anyone who makes less money is less of a parasite than anyone who makes more because our country uses the third world for its lifeblood. Statistically it is working Americans who make $32,400 are the world's 1% and you should be thanking the NEETs for not competing with you for that kushy job.
I've known some women who desperately just wanted to be mothers/housewives, but yeah, ime usually they're just lazy as shit and care more about comfort than anything else.
The idea is that usually women end up doing domestic labor in their household or family, which is obviously unpaid.
The husband could pay his wife but in community property states that literally has no effect, their assets are joint so their community property would just be paying itself.
in a lot of these cases it's more economical for the woman to stop working because daycare costs almost as much as or more than her income
In that case the woman should open a home daycare, then she can look after her kid and look after other people's kids to make more income than her previous job!
The husband could pay his wife but in community property states that literally has no effect, their assets are joint so their community property would just be paying itself.
Yeah, it'd be stupid and completely counter to the idea that the family is a unit, which is one of the tenets of the '''''traditional'''''' nuclear family idea. I've also unironically heard people say that homemakers should be paid by the government, which is an aggressively stupid idea.
In that case the woman could open a home daycare, then she can look after her kid and look after other people's kids to make more income than her previous job!
A lot of women do that sort of thing 'unofficially', which seems like a pretty great middle ground. I think there are a lot of regulations involved with opening a 'real' daycare, which could be a big blocker for a lot of women, and in general even doing it unofficially may be unrealistic for many reasons. Plus it doesn't make the problem any better for women who aren't cut out for spending all of their time and energy taking care of kids (so most of them) or women who wan't to build a career in something that doesn't involve childcare.
I mean in almost every case having a child is usually a result of your own actions. If you can't afford to have a child, and don't want to care for it, then dont. I made that decision, it's really not that hard to decide to use a condom.
They can pay for it, but one of the partners has to make a huge sacrifice in many cases, and nobody can know how they'll handle being a full-time parent until they are. Not to mention that daycare costs and increasing cost of living in general could create demographic problems that affect everyone else for a number of reasons, as well as cause a higher number of children to be born with developmental problems because people are waiting longer to have children due to the prohibitive costs, which costs taxpayers. And most people of childbearing age aren't financially secure enough to raise children comfortably; if they waited until they were in a perfect financial place to have kids, the amount of children being born would decline so sharply that it would cause problems that cost a hell of a lot more than subsidizing daycare.
The argument can go in the other direction, too. If the population continues to exponentially increase there will be more kids than daycare workers that can adequately care for them. Not to mention food. Having children is a privilege, not a right and it should be a well thought out decision because once you give birth it is hard to take it back. Ultimately if you don't want to care for children, then don't have them.
120 comments
1 mrsuns10 2018-05-07
Slavery is a choice
-Kanye
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-05-07
~ me_irl
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-05-07
Hey Ed, I tried to run that simulator and failed...how should I do it?đ
1 LightUmbra 2018-05-07
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-05-07
TY,but I tried and failed 3 times.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-05-07
Try it in that sub. I don't thing it works outside anymore.
1 LightUmbra 2018-05-07
Awww really âšī¸
1 SAC-Lawn_Gnome 2018-05-07
If u check usersims post history they haven't commented in 12 hours
1 zergling_Lester 2018-05-07
Was it Ed whose comment history finally pushed the cussy (computer gussy) over the edge?
1 Fr33_Lax 2018-05-07
That seems to happen to a lot of things that interact with Ed.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-05-07
https://www.reddit.com/r/User_Simulator/comments/8hfcjw/comment/dykj5bi/
The Bot isn't running 24/7 :(((
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-05-07
đđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđ
1 atsteak 2018-05-07
"Free will is a tool of the patriarchy"
1 SnapshillBot 2018-05-07
I'm not even sure what your point is. Yeah I'd rather sleep with a dakimakura of my waifu Renge-chan than with some random 3D slut but that doesn't mean I'm desperate, it's the opposite, it implies that I have standards.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-05-07
I still can't believe that someone actually typed this out without somehow becoming self aware.
1 eekamike 2018-05-07
Wait are these actual quotes that the bot uses?
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-05-07
Indeed they are, I remember seeing this one in the wild.
1 Keep_Yourself_Safe 2018-05-07
https://www.removeddit.com/r/sadcringe/comments/6wwdtx/thats_not_green_day/dmbthpb/
1 runner_man_123 2018-05-07
People like this have such a weird view of how the world works, like they must think everyone is this powerless agent floating around just being acted on by forces outside anyone's control.
Just like, don't volunteer? If you need to "volunteer" in order to get your food stamps then you aren't really volunteering, you're doing it in exchange for indirect payment. It's very likely this volunteer-for-foodstamps thing coexists with all these volunteer jobs at public services like the police and fire department by design. Also some people just want to volunteer at stuff, and the reason a lot of them are women is because they probably don't want to take on a full-time career.
Also imagine being upset that wineries and organic farms other resort-industries attract volunteers. Some people have fun "working" (probably doing some fun easy job) on a farm. Are we supposed to feel bad for people who want to get paid doing something that's so fun that hipsters from the city are willing to do it for free?
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-05-07
Or, because they are privileged enough to have someone who supoorts their "passion". Which often means some dude dying inside in a cubicle job.
1 atsteak 2018-05-07
"This oppression of white, middle class women will not stand!"
1 telandrias 2018-05-07
Its offensive because women are losing bbn out on rich husbands while more and more men become traps to be be better than women at supportive relationships. So now these women have to work alongside busy homebodies with ample free time.
1 RobosaurusRex2000 2018-05-07
Hey now, we all appreciate the bussy master race but let's be real here. Traps have a severe mental illness and a voluntary hormone imbalance. They're just as crazy as real women, the sex is just better.
1 telandrias 2018-05-07
First off, doubt
Second off, men are attracted to people with mental illnesses. We call them women.
1 high_side 2018-05-07
He just got done explaining a reasonable calculus for being a trap.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
Psh, that's nothing. Full-time mommies are chefs, chauffeurs, teachers, cleaners, babysitters, daycare workers, craftswomen, musicians, AND doctors! For no money! And in addition some of them work hard labor as volunteers! Have some respect.
1 PowerOfJerkoffMagic 2018-05-07
^ this chick hates her job, is jelous that she will never live the glorious, FREE lifestyle of the NEET woman. Snally, can you even bonbon?
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
I unironically fuckin love my job and am bewildered by the fact that it even exists and that I get paid good money to do it. NEETdom sucks anyway.
1 wandererchronicles 2018-05-07
What do you do, and how can I peel off your skin and replace you?
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
I wish I could say, but there are some people in this sub who like to record those kinds of things.
1 PowerOfJerkoffMagic 2018-05-07
(is a different person from the person who you're replying to) I wouldn't record anything, I do desperately want to know in case of an off chance that there's some kind of "in" for me, but I did Google you and find that time you posted gussy to r/trashy. I didn't judge you for gussy posting, but I did judge you a bit for posting to r/trashy all coy-like instead of just posting to gw like an actual trashy person would.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-05-07
no wonder the kids in this country are in such bad shape
1 wisty 2018-05-07
If a chef spends 2 hours making a meal for 3 people they're not worth $5 / hour.
Minimum wage + tips.
A teacher handles a class of 20 on an easy day.
Once again, yeah sure. But a minimum wage cleaner can do waaaaaay more.
So's a TV. Or a high school student. Or a labrador.
Daycare workers look after 4 babies, or like 10 kids.
WTF?
Singing to entertain a small child is more the purview of clowns than musicians. Not to denigrate clowns.
I'm pretty sure putting on a bandaid is at best the job of a nurse. Simple procedures and triage is the job of a nurse. And you don't see a triage nurse for their "kiss it better" skills, but because they actually know what the fuck they're doing.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-05-07
thanks for the long ass explanation
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
It was a joke you dip!
1 wisty 2018-05-07
If you know it's bait does that mean you're never allowed to take it?
1 atsteak 2018-05-07
"Economics is a tool of the patriarchy. I should be paid six figures to do what I think is best for society - shitpost on reddit"
1 Fr33_Lax 2018-05-07
Really it's better for everyone that we stay here and reeeee at each other.
1 cleverseneca 2018-05-07
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!
1 Snowayne2 2018-05-07
Why the fuck would you ever post a wall of text of seriouspost on /r/drama? Please Keep Yourself Safe quickly.
1 PowerOfJerkoffMagic 2018-05-07
Check history, it's an SRDine đ¤ĸ
They have to go back
1 Snowayne2 2018-05-07
OUT OUT OUT
1 TheOtherGuy9603 2018-05-07
Why are they even here they have their own sub
1 Snowayne2 2018-05-07
Same reason as the CA immigrants, people leaving their shithole subs in search of the promised land. OUT with all of them I say!
1 high_side 2018-05-07
Back to Arizona you fuckers!
1 TinyJibble 2018-05-07
> Pretending r/drama users aren't the same people as SRD users
1 TheOtherGuy9603 2018-05-07
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
im going to seriously post my fist up you're ass bitch đ
1 high_side 2018-05-07
đđ
đŖ
1 mainfingertopwise 2018-05-07
Well, yeah.
"I want to be rich and successful. I am not rich and successful. Therefore someone must have did something."
1 JimmyEightTimes 2018-05-07
Nobody has ever been able to propose a way in which humans actually have free will and aren't just subject to interactions between their genes and environment.
1 bareballzthebitch 2018-05-07
Nobody like Kant or Hume that is.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-05-07
shut it poindexter we don't need none of that book lernin' around these parts
1 Chicup 2018-05-07
Can you picture a world where a Brony fucking a horse plushy is genetically predetermined behavior?
1 Sigecaps23 2018-05-07
This argument is for idiots who don't understand that using the term 'biology' or 'genetics' in place of 'soul' or 'will' leads us nowhere new and is simply a sneaky way to disavow guilt
1 JimmyEightTimes 2018-05-07
I simply stated a fact. There's no "argument" about it.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
There is a big problem with companies using volunteers/'unpaid interns' as free labor in exchange for 'experience' and 'exposure' and it's really fucked up. That said, the people in that thread are idiots. The complainer is essentially getting food money in exchange for doing the easiest work imaginable, a lot of those 'volunteers' she's getting angry for are volunteering because they have the luxury to sit at home all day on someone else's dime and need something to do (or are retired or a teenager trying to get some service hours in). And volunteers at places like farms and wineries get a share of the produce which is why they volunteer there to begin with.
1 Chicup 2018-05-07
But some of them are women, I mean they are WOMEN!
I still can't figure out how being a woman comes into this.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
Probably because more women volunteer. But that's because more women have the time and motivation to volunteer because many women don't work and are bored so it's a bullshit complaint.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-05-07
when i was looking for work i found a company that wanted people to work in their business, which was selling stuff online for free, for full time, not getting paid. they mostly targeted immigrants. they gave a bullshit advice about it being work experience to put on your resume. in the interview i pretty much laughed and said i'm not working full time for free.
it's pretty fucking weird that even exists, but i can't imagine being dumb enough to actually do it.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
Wow, that one's pretty bad. I could see someone doing it if they had a huge gap on their resume and/or no references, but otherwise wow. At that point you may as well just rope a friend into pretending that they were your employer at McDonalds or something.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-05-07
i did some research on the place on i asked people if they knew anything about it in forums for my city. turns out they are a free labor scam. they basically claim they want to help people put references on their resume and get jobs, but they actively stop the people getting jobs and try to keep them there as long as possible.
also i'm guessing that references from a scam company are pretty useless anyway.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
wow, that's awful. I wonder if anyone's reported them to the labor board.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-05-07
well my father actually works in that area. i told him about it a while ago and he said he was going to investigate it, but i think the forgot.
1 Orsonius 2018-05-07
imagine being this retarded.
no wonder they are Terfs
1 siskonaut 2018-05-07
How can these "women" try to liberate their own fellow sisters when they can't even understand their values and lines of reasoning?
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-05-07
lol the "Day Without Women" where absolutely nothing changed. really makes you think.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-05-07
Nobody sane ever tried to organise a "Day Without Men", because we'd actually like to still have a civilization four hours later.
1 PowerOfJerkoffMagic 2018-05-07
These comments give me the confidence to know that I'm doing the right thing by accepting the NEET lifestyle, since the workforce doesn't need me anyway :) Felt guilty about it for too long, ty all
1 Orsonius 2018-05-07
Don't feel guilty about the superior leech life.
If I could I would be neet for life go full hikkikomori
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-05-07
on the bright side, the reactors might take longer than a day to go critical.
on the other side, whoa nelly riots at Food4Less within 15 minutes.
1 high_side 2018-05-07
1 Orsonius 2018-05-07
Literally this
1 youshareon 2018-05-07
If only there was some way to not do volunteer work!
1 MuppetSodomizer 2018-05-07
Why is Sandi Toksvig employed at all. Is just because she's upper class, gay, and european? She's got all the humor and talent of dead hippo that shat itself.
If she's not deported after Brexit, we'll know that the UK has no hope.
1 d-amazo 2018-05-07
in my state i can't even get food stamps because i'm a single white male with no dependents. this is female privilege.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
What are the rules there? Do they just only have WIC or something?
1 d-amazo 2018-05-07
if you are single with no dependents you're required to work 20 hours a week at least to qualify, but if you make more than 1200 a month you're considered to make too much to qualify. which, unless you work 20 hours a week for less than minimum wage, is pretty hard to do. they're trying to change it so that insurance benefits will work the same way, too.
i'm sure it's the same for women as well but minorities, immigrants and single mothers with dependents all get benefits almost without question. the female privilege part of my post was just a joke for the record, i think everybody should be able to get SOME kind of help when they need it regardless.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
Wow, that sucks. Sounds like a good way to create a welfare trap. Though what happens if somebody's looking for employment without an unemployment package or savings? Sounds like they're screwed.
How do you know? I hear people saying this all the time, but aside from WIC and some temporary training/assistance programs for visa lottery winners, I've never heard of a government law or program that makes it easier for women without dependents, immigrants, and minorities to get welfare. Is it just that these groups are more likely to qualify for the 'less than 1200/month' thing or that they have their own programs or that they can just go up to the government and be like 'hey I'm not working pay me' or what?
1 d-amazo 2018-05-07
the paperwork i got basically said in various ways that single people without dependents who are not immigrants on working visas or otherwise aren't eligible for food stamps programs anymore, and the meeting they brought us in on had explained very specifically that unless we had kids, were on some kind of disability or otherwise disadvantaged we were no longer eligible unless they fulfilled the working requirements.
also the less than 1200 was for my specific case, it varies depending on things like, again, dependents you can claim, marital status, etc. etc. kinda like how taxes work i guess. i honestly don't know much about it.
and yeah the area i'm in is pretty famously a shitty welfare trap, i'm not going into specifics because lol location info on the internet but it's kind of a shithole.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
That doesn't really sound like it benefits minorities aside from the fact that some minority groups are more likely to be on work visas or single with kids. The immigrant thing seems sketchy, but people shipped in on H1Bs make something like 60k or 90k minimum, so I guess they're talking about immigrants with green cards, but immigrants with green cards are there to work so perhaps there's some sort of stipulation about them being between jobs. Plus they have to have been in the country legally for a minimum of 5 years to receive SNAP benefits. As for 'otherwise disadvantaged', if that was really written there and didn't have any form of explanation as to what that means, I doubt that would cover being a woman or minority because somebody could get into a shitton of trouble for discriminating based on race, and knowing some 'client-facing' workers in positions like these, they tend to be extremely jaded and even pretty racist themselves because they have to deal with the underclass day in and day out. I'm pretty sure deciding who gets what EBT benefits is decided by some sort of algorithm or formula where race or gender doesn't directly factor in (except in the case of pregnant women).
That sucks. It's a shame so many communities can't sustain themselves without government support anymore.
1 shallowm 2018-05-07
What do you mean? Green cards give you what's known as "permanent residency", and it's not conditional on work like H1B visas are, although you're allowed to work with them.
Also, I know that it depends on the state and city, but the "racial minorities get benefits without question" is definitely not true for my city, which is pretty blue, so, I don't know, it doesn't seem like something political. I know for a fact that if you don't meet the income requirements anymore, they won't approve your recertification, regardless of your status as a racial minority.
On top of that, this is what it says on the application next to the question asking about race:
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
My bad, I confused them with those temporary work visas they give out, but they wouldn't be eligible for benefits of any kind. I was trying to make sense of the idea that immigrants are eligible for benefits over citizens/permanent residents.
Yeah, I think that would be straight-up illegal regardless of the state you live in, but I could be wrong. The idea that welfare is given to minorities preferentially seems to be pretty wide-spread and it's annoying.
1 d-amazo 2018-05-07
i mean i was just shitposting so i'm sure you know more about it than i do but the system in my area is kinda rigged in weird shitty ways, against all kinds of people who need help
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
I'm sure you're right because the American welfare system is absolute shit, I just don't think that the system directly benefits minorities over white people. It definitely offers a lot more benefits to women tho.
1 Chicup 2018-05-07
So work 40 hours a week and eat on your own dime.
1 d-amazo 2018-05-07
yeah i can do that now, at the time i couldn't
1 Chicup 2018-05-07
Why?
1 shallowm 2018-05-07
I know you want to shout "gas the poor and those in between jobs", you don't have to be so coy about it.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-05-07
Did you eat your own bootstraps?
1 ineedmorealts 2018-05-07
Yes, the age old libertarian advice of "Stop being poor"
1 Chicup 2018-05-07
By, you know working.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-05-07
Yes because 100% of poor people just don't work hard enough like your daddy does and if they did they;d have lots of money
1 Chicup 2018-05-07
He was working only 20 hours a week and made it sound like he was trying to game the system. All I asked for was why.
1 d-amazo 2018-05-07
i didn't bother explaining why because if your first instinct is to think someone is trying to game the system, nothing i say will convince you otherwise.
that, and it's none of your business.
1 Mexagon 2018-05-07
More like "stop being lazy."
1 high_side 2018-05-07
Mayostamps when?
1 pushweight24_7 2018-05-07
Welfare is not for men. I have experience in social services and most of it is allotted for women and children, men need not apply. That's why 80% of homeless people are men.
1 parameciidae 2018-05-07
Oh, is this another post where everyone kvetches about women kvetching?
1 atsteak 2018-05-07
"The drama is between her and the patriarchy"
1 parameciidae 2018-05-07
If you say so pal.
1 Fat_Black_Chick 2018-05-07
Don't tell me not to kvetch about others kvetching!
1 high_side 2018-05-07
/u/AnnoysTheGoys can I get a translation?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-05-07
kvetch = reeee
1 infinitude 2018-05-07
And suddenly, they've all become economic experts.
1 DoctorMort 2018-05-07
â
Is this retarded bitch talking about thrift stores?
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-05-07
Planned Parenthood, but don't tell her that. she might rethink her fourth abortion.
1 SuperiorExcess 2018-05-07
Fun fact: abortions are pretty damaging so it's unlikely she has had 3 and still has a working baby factory
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-05-07
thatsthejoke.jpg
1 SuperiorExcess 2018-05-07
No it's not
1 virohm 2018-05-07
/>replying to a three day old thread
1 high_side 2018-05-07
I skimmed the source editorial. They didn't even attempt to prove that the economy "runs on women's unpaid work". And all /u/FuzzyFakeFur can come up with is public sector volunteer work. Omg the police department would literally fall apart without women volunteers handling the nonemergency calls from seniors!
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
The idea is that usually women end up doing domestic labor in their household or family, which is obviously unpaid. Not sure what they think the solution is, though. If you want women to get paid for their labor then encourage them to join the workforce and split the domestic duties with their partners. If they don't want to do join the workforce then they've actively chosen to not get paid. Though making daycare more accessible and/or mandating paid parental leave would be a huge step forward because in a lot of these cases it's more economical for the woman to stop working because daycare costs almost as much as or more than her income, so why bother slaving away in some shitty job just to pay for someone else to look after your kids. There's no excuse after the kids are in school tho unless there are special circumstances.
1 Chicup 2018-05-07
Forward to what? Why do people think outsourcing ones children is a step up in life?
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
Not everybody wants to spend all of their time keeping their eyes plastered to an infant and/or works a shitty job. Women should at least have the option to continue working if that's what works best. Not to mention that the cost of daycare in the USA is astronomical and one of the things that prevents some people from even having kids; even if they're making a decent wage it's unaffordable in some places.
Because some people, women included, want to have a career. The idea of the woman as a 'stay at home mom' who dedicates all of her time to raising a kid is only a few decades old. Previously, children were looked after in large part by family members, community members, and other children because there was a lot to do in the household and community in order to survive. With modern amenities, that work has been reduced, and the only thing that stay-at-home mothers have to do with their time is interact with their kids and do some basic errands. It's not healthy for the mother because her entire identity is centered around the kid, and it's not healthy for the kid because the mother's complete devotion to the kid can lead to neurosis and cause her to react negatively or overbearingly once the kid becomes more independent. Not to mention that the alienation of the mother and full fixation on a task that has no consequence to anyone but her family can cause mental health issues to arise or resurface, which can obviously negatively impact the child and family. And then once the kid is in school the mother's twiddling her thumbs for 8 hours a day in an empty house or trying to enter the workforce with a massive resume gap. The whole thing is ridiculous. It might work for some families, but in those cases the woman's biggest aspiration in life but to be a mother and/or she is a parasite who wants to spend the vast majority of her life sitting on her ass watching Netflix on someone else's dime. Because that's what the vast majority of SAHMs do after their kids are in school. At that point it is a completely meaningless role.
1 PowerOfJerkoffMagic 2018-05-07
I don't have kids but yeah fucking right, anyone who makes less money is less of a parasite than anyone who makes more because our country uses the third world for its lifeblood. Statistically it is working Americans who make $32,400 are the world's 1% and you should be thanking the NEETs for not competing with you for that kushy job.
1 shallowm 2018-05-07
Like Nigga Just Don't Have Children đđđ
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-05-07
but they do get paid. we call it "shopping"
1 high_side 2018-05-07
I didn't realize that contributed to the GDP. Economics is so confusing.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
Labor doesn't necessarily have to factor into the GDP...
1 im-a-koala 2018-05-07
They choose it because homemaking is usually easier than a full time job.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
I've known some women who desperately just wanted to be mothers/housewives, but yeah, ime usually they're just lazy as shit and care more about comfort than anything else.
1 atsteak 2018-05-07
The husband could pay his wife but in community property states that literally has no effect, their assets are joint so their community property would just be paying itself.
In that case the woman should open a home daycare, then she can look after her kid and look after other people's kids to make more income than her previous job!
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
Yeah, it'd be stupid and completely counter to the idea that the family is a unit, which is one of the tenets of the '''''traditional'''''' nuclear family idea. I've also unironically heard people say that homemakers should be paid by the government, which is an aggressively stupid idea.
A lot of women do that sort of thing 'unofficially', which seems like a pretty great middle ground. I think there are a lot of regulations involved with opening a 'real' daycare, which could be a big blocker for a lot of women, and in general even doing it unofficially may be unrealistic for many reasons. Plus it doesn't make the problem any better for women who aren't cut out for spending all of their time and energy taking care of kids (so most of them) or women who wan't to build a career in something that doesn't involve childcare.
1 Chin_Up_Chick 2018-05-07
I mean in almost every case having a child is usually a result of your own actions. If you can't afford to have a child, and don't want to care for it, then dont. I made that decision, it's really not that hard to decide to use a condom.
1 snallygaster 2018-05-07
They can pay for it, but one of the partners has to make a huge sacrifice in many cases, and nobody can know how they'll handle being a full-time parent until they are. Not to mention that daycare costs and increasing cost of living in general could create demographic problems that affect everyone else for a number of reasons, as well as cause a higher number of children to be born with developmental problems because people are waiting longer to have children due to the prohibitive costs, which costs taxpayers. And most people of childbearing age aren't financially secure enough to raise children comfortably; if they waited until they were in a perfect financial place to have kids, the amount of children being born would decline so sharply that it would cause problems that cost a hell of a lot more than subsidizing daycare.
1 Chin_Up_Chick 2018-05-07
The argument can go in the other direction, too. If the population continues to exponentially increase there will be more kids than daycare workers that can adequately care for them. Not to mention food. Having children is a privilege, not a right and it should be a well thought out decision because once you give birth it is hard to take it back. Ultimately if you don't want to care for children, then don't have them.
1 KingWayneX 2018-05-07
Those fucking badge bunnies make 20/hr
1 freet0 2018-05-07
so... work?
1 kingofthehill5 2018-05-07
What did the removed comment say?