“For the longest time, it was: The male is the provider,” he said. “I was that guy. But now I’m not ashamed to say this is who I am in my life. That’s what Covid did. We had a lot of downtime to reflect and think about what’s important.”
The real silver lining of Covid is that lots of us realized how much more we can get out of life if we didn't focus on being busy and commuting to work. I know that for myself I can finally focus on the life I really want to live since I work from home and see the value in simple pleasure at home. I never thought it about it changing traditional gender roles but it makes sense that anyone at home can do cleaning and cooking for the entire household.
This is not going to be received with nuance in “men’s liberation” (as a man I scoff at the very concept) but Happy Valley Oregon is in Clackamas County just southeast of Portland and even though they are a Portland suburbs they position themselves explicitly as an anti-Portland in terms of gender expectations. So you’re going to get a pretty skewed picture of what boys are expected to be, compared to even just literally a couple miles northwest in Portland. They went and interviewed the sons of the maga dudes who think everyone in Portland is a weak soyboy antifa cuck or whatever, of course those kids are going to say that they value traditional signs of masculinity and feel like they can’t cry when they are sad.
Happy Valley Oregon is in Clackamas County just southeast of Portland and even though they are a Portland suburbs they position themselves explicitly as an anti-Portland in terms of gender expectations.
Has the city council released some statement on the matter? Where can I read the city’s position on this?
Oh, sorry, were my feelings supposed to be hurt or something? I was trying to be charitable and assume you’re not just an asshole, but then you went and admitted it.
What I see in the article is that the devide is between professional and social settings.
In the educational or professional space lots has been done and a lot of progress has been made, so much so that the young women interrogated didn’t feel like sex was an obstacle in those areas.
In the social, or romantic sphere though things still seem largely unchanged with men and women still in very classic gender roles.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if things haven’t moved as much in these spheres, it’s because there’s less pressure to achieve equality here. This could be due to the fact that inspite of the issues women face there is still an advantage to their place in social circles and romantic relationships and as such feminism hasn’t touched on them as much, or it could be that some of the issues have a more biological component that we will need to accommodate and compensate for rather than trying to simply level the playing field.
I agree with your overall conclusion, but not with your theory. Yes men and women have more equality in education and professional settings. However, women have changed the social and romantic spheres through feminism SIGNIFICANTLY. The household division of labor and the power dynamics in a relationship are two pretty big examples of change. Yes, women haven’t changed the systems that benefit them. I don’t think that’s out of a desire to “maintain a benefit”. I think it’s because it is hard to see a system that doesn’t hurt you, or one that benefits you. That’s the whole concept of privilege: the benefits are invisible to those that benefit. These aspects of patriarchy hurt men, and it is therefore men who must demand and create change, to take down the patriarchal systems that hurt us.
We just never noticed because before because on the whole cis straight white men benefited and everyone else suffered. Now that everyone is taking apart all the systems that hurt them (often to our benefit), all that’s left are the parts that hurt us (sometimes to the benefit of others). We just need to keep taking the patriarchy apart!
Men's groups are challenging traditional "cowboy" masculinity that promotes emotional suppression. Loneliness, anger, and isolation plague American men. Organizations like Journeymen offer safe spaces for vulnerability, connection, and healing through sharing emotions and stories.
I don’t agree that the strategy of increasing the housing supply is a bad strategy. Indeed, it’s the only way to solve this issue long-term. But it does take time and money which raises the question of what to do with thousands of people in the meantime.
I see that cited, and wonder where that number comes from. The document they cite is from Grants Pass, and just also says that number without saying where they got it other than “Portland Officials.” I’m not necessarily saying it is untrue, but it seems dubious at best. Even if it were true, were there stipulations to that housing (no partners, no pets, no drugs, etc)? If so, the high number may be related. Housing first (which should include other social support structures) is shown to work; housing with conditions is marginal at best.
It certainly raises questions but I think there’s a lot of missing information there. Who are they asking? Every unhoused person or just the most disruptive groups that they most want to move? And why are people refusing? Is the offered shelter substandard in some way? You could write a whole article about just that statistic.
But if they have shelter available the courts do allow them to ban camping in public spaces which is needed in my view. Public space is very limited in America and there are real costs to that space being monopolized by a small group of people. If they truly have nowhere else to be then fair enough but as soon as alternatives exist then they should be there instead and not on sidewalks and public parks.
One problem may be the extreme restriction of autonomy that sometimes accompanies public housing. You see this tendency to treat adults receiving any sort of aid as if they were children.
It also tends to be the case with VA housing. The way they treat veterans living in VA condos is absurd. It’s on par with what you’d expect to see in like a halfway home, except these folks usually haven’t done anything illegal. They signed their lives away, came home with PTSD, and get treated like trash by the VA for their troubles.
The strings that go with public housing often make the idea of looking for another way to get a leg up more appealing.
I don’t think there is enough unused housing in some of these cities. Also, some fraction of these people are mentally ill and would severely damage or destroy whatever housing they find themselves in. We saw this with some of the hotel shelter programs during the pandemic.
It is why the belief that we can vote meaningful change to our system is so naive and dangerous. Before our politicians are anything, they are members of the upper class. Their one true goal will always be keeping those beneath them in their place.
Alliance? Please. They’ve been creating this crisis with their actions/inaction and now it’s the homeless peoples’ faults? Where are they gonna f*ckin go??
Almost half of your list is things dems try to address but get blocked because they don’t have a senate supermajority. Dems are bad enough with the truth, you don’t need to lie about them
Yeah I agree, Some of those points also have some more nuance. I think we can all be against endless war but recognize what is happening in Ukraine as something else. It depends on if you think it is ok for the USA to use geopolitics of Russia’s blunders in Ukraine as a way to wage a modern day cold war against an old foe. I think most in the West would prefer Ukraine to be free and independent, rather than Russia win.
So the article went into Shrinkage but it didn’t go into the shrinkage data for the stores in question (probably doesn’t exist publicly) nor did it go into any other information on the shops relative sizing or anything else even though it mentioned they were likely smaller than the ones that didn’t close… What an annoying article it’s almost as bad as believing the original target statement at face value.
Unless Target decides to share more data, the article correctly points out that the publicly available crime data goes against their claims. It also points out that shrinkage reporting from Target and other retailers also doesn’t support the narrative that shoplifting is a bigger problem than ever. It’s apparently an excuse for retailers underperforming for other reasons (that might be less tolerable to shareholders or less spectacular to “news” consumers). I don’t understand what you don’t like about the article.
The narrative that is being sold is that there’s mass theft of items, you know the videos of people trying to roll with like a shopping cart full of shit. While that shit no doubt does happen, it’s just not a daily thing across the country and there’s no question that it’s hardly as if these corps can’t eat that cost easily.
Convince people there’s total lawlessness, scare them into voting for ‘tough on crime’ legislators that are bought and paid for, use the illusion of mass anarchy and free for all shoplifting to gut low performing stores and not have the bad press of all those layoffs, rinse, repeat.
The only good thing about target is you’re paying more money for a worse selection but you don’t have to look at the people that typically shop at Walmart. That’s it.
I mean I literally mentioned that in my comment? It’s not necessarily about the shrinkage but it’s about where the shrinkage is located that could be a problem since we don’t have that data as it’s not published you cannot make that statement that it hasn’t impacted them and the lack of adequate comparison of size of the locations to other locations in the area doesn’t really make sense.
The Seattle Times noted that the stores that are closing “are relatively new, opening in 2019 as part of a push by Target to shore up its bottom line by opening smaller, more profitable stores in urban areas.”
They don’t tell you how much smaller they are relatively so you can’t get an estimate of how much more the thefts would impact them even though they tell you as such. E.g. they say the Northgate store has 172 thefts reported but how much bigger was it? If it’s 2 times bigger then it’s about the same amount of thefts as University Districts (87 thefts) and what not?
As well as the fact that they don’t give you an estimation of the profit margins of the actual stores (This means that an average of $1.57 in inventory was lost for every $100 in sales) but how much does this 1.57 effect the profit margins of the store? (Net profit margin being 3% so a shop having doubled theft in shrinkage compared with profit would halve the stores profit 3 times or more would likely make the store unprofitable).
Target is the one making the claims and closing the stores. And they have the data. It’s on the them to explain the discrepancy. I don’t think the differences in the sizes of the stores potentially offers an explanation. It seems more indicative of a flawed business plan, that they’re having trouble making smaller stores work even in lower crime areas.
As for shrinkage, it hasn’t doubled, at least not recently. I think the article references an increase of 9% or $0.13 over the past few years. If they were getting $3.00 profit of every $100.00 in sales and that increase in shrinkage was not made up for at all, it would mean that Target would have only missed 0.39¢ of profit, or 0.13%. Besides, shrinkage isn’t just outright shoplifting as the article explains. It also includes employees helping themselves, which they might be more likely to do the more their employer takes advantage of them. In other words, some of that shrinkage might actually be made up for by increased productivity. The employees are just giving themselves little unauthorized bonuses when they can.
The shrinkage can be higher or lower depending on store and location one can have like 0.10c of shrinkage and another $3.00 it’s not a constant that was the point of my statement and the shrinkage measurement being used is the aggregate shrinkage across all businesses not even just target itself.
I would agree that was the case however they don’t appear to have actually asked Target for further clarification given that they didn’t say they got no response which would have placed the ball firmly in Targets court. However they have decided to only make the statement based on the facts of the matter which they currently have readily available to them and not try and attain other relevant facts to this case.
Target has one of the most comprehensive shoplifter detection systems in place. It rivals law enforcement in its ability to track thieves across all their stores.
I don’t believe the claim of shrink being the issue. There’s virtually no way it’s the root cause.
Walgreens tried to do the same thing (close stores and blame shrinkage) and even walked it back later (and that's not even pointing out they had an SEC filing a couple years before where they planned on closing 200 stores).
web.archive.org
Oldest