17 Sep 11
Originally posted by jimslyp69Agree with your point of comparison. My follow-on post was merely
Going back to your earlier point about people being more inclined to point out what they hate rather than what they like or would like to know...
a playful tongue in cheek rejoinder to the previous two posts.
59)
18 Sep 11
59) Supercilious medical professionals who view themselves as omnipotent
and patients with disdain. There are many incidents of misdiagnosis and wrong
judgement less dramatic than the amputation of wrong limbs. Unfortunately,
white coat fear syndrome prevents most patients from asserting their rights.
60)
19 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI generally agree with your starting list. Yet, talking while chewing is annoying to others but I don't know about deplorable. Just a thought.
[b]202 Things We Deplore
1) Parents who discipline their children in fits of anger, yell obscenities and slap them on the face. 2) Males (as opposed to men) who resort to striking ladies. 3) Horsey women (as opposed to ladies) who insist on climbing down from an elevated pedastal, in the western world, to crusade for equality. 4) Bullies in jun ...[text shortened]... mouths. 6) Unhappy and easily threatened people who constantly complain, whine and grouse.
7)[/b]
Nevertheless, the reason I replied to your list is to ask were you familiar with Justice Brennan's discussion in Fronterior v. Richardson where he explained that placing women on a pedestal is actually placing women in a cage. Justice Brennan's famous quote [in writing for the Court, Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)]:
"Our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination, rationalized by an attitude of 'romantic paternalism' which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage."
By the way, Justice Ginsberg when she was a practicing attorney represented many plaintiffs (often men) against paternalistic laws "favoring" women. Anyway, in the Fronterior case from wikipedia:
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), was an Equal Protection case in which the Supreme Court decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of gender.
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, applied for housing and medical benefits for her husband, Joseph, whom she claimed as a "dependent." While servicemen could claim their wives as dependents and get benefits for them automatically, servicewomen had to prove that their husbands were dependent on them for more than half their support. Joseph the husband did not qualify under this rule, and therefore could not get benefits. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional.
Sharron was represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Future Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, representing the ACLU as amicus curiae, was also permitted by the Court to argue in favor of Frontiero.
