| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider this: a restaurant's expenses for the customer are the costs for meat, veggies etc, salaries for the staff, energy and insurances, the location, ad campaigns, etc. Of all these, only the food costs more for a big eater. Should men then be forced to pay a significant markup for insurance, ad campaigns and so on?
Well... The amount of food is part of the service. So someone who eats more should pay more... Which is why restaurants should (and most of them do) have differently sized portions... With the bigger ones costing more.
Of course, the difference should only proportional to the difference in cost to to produce the extra amount of food.
Another way to view it is that the customer pays to get fed. Is it reasonable that someone bigger should pay more for the exact same service?
Not really... You're paying for service and goods. It doesn't really matter what you do with your food. If you decide to eat it all, give it to someone else, throw it in the dumpster, burn it or simply leave without eating it, you pay the same price, which is completely fair. If I sell you a computer, I don't care if you'll use it for work, gaming or as paper weight. The PC still costs the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?
Everyone should pay for what they buy.
If you ask a larger portion of food you pay more because the restaurant charges more for that amount of food, doesn't matter if you're large or small, nor does it matter if you eat your food or if you throw it away. If you buy a better computer, you pay more, doesn't matter what you do with it or how often you use it. If you pay for 1 month of cable TV, you pay the same price, no matter if you watch it 24/7 or if you never turn your TV on.
The price is based on the product/service being sold, not on who you are or how much you'll enjoy what you bought.
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?
Extra x's DO cost extra $.
Trust me. I am not small norse wolf.
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?Extra x's DO cost extra $.
Trust me. I am not small norse wolf.
Yeah... And finding bigger shoes is a pain in the ass! Apparently the shoe industry somehow managed to miss the increase in average foot size in the last two decades or so... Well... At least in the US and Brazil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Use the 10% discount you got from your car insurance and get 2.
Sorry, I spend that money on tampons and birth control.
So if most manspreaders are men with a lack of common courtesy, that makes it not a gendered issue because...?If you're calling it "manspreading," you've defined it as gendered issue, just as much as if I focused solely on women with overlarge pocketbooks on public transport and called it "pursespreading."
Discourteous people have taken up more than their fair share of space on public transportation, since the invention of public transportation, and the answer to that has always been to say, "Hey, it's crowded today, is that seat taken?"
there was a huge ad campaign focused on this back in the day.
Doesn't seem like a problem to you guys that a significant part of the population has extra expenses simply to deal with the absolute basics. If there is a disparity, shouldn't this be compensated via taxes?
Doesn't seem like a problem to you guys that a significant part of the population has extra expenses simply to deal with the absolute basics. If there is a disparity, shouldn't this be compensated via taxes?
I'd rather we all had as few taxes as possible and everyone were able to pay for that stuff by themselves... But that's too unrealistic an expectation, so the government does have to provide free education, health care and other basic needs (sadly, the quality of public services varies quite widely from place to place).
If the only extra expenses someone has to afford is paying a bit more for bigger shoes or having to buy a second serving of fries, then that person is doing fine. The problem is when they can't afford to pay for food, potable water, electricity, health care, education, etc.
I don't mind paying more if I consume more. That's only fair. I just prefer to pay straight to the producer rather than paying the government, who then pays the producer.
Which makes me wonder, again, whether the issue isn't the taking up of space but rather the effrontery to petit-bourgeois feminist mores of males spreading their legs and showing off their crotch.
And, if so, what is a cis heterosexual white green male to make of this?:
Chicago seeks to dismiss lawsuit over topless rights
Well, if that cis het green male was also red, he'd make this of it:
For the right of women to go topless if they so desire!
For mass investment in public transportation--let's say, twice as many trains--so that manspreading doesn't force tired commuters to stand!
And if the issue is really the effrontery of feminists having to see men display their crotches, well, tough!
For women's liberation through socialist revolution!
Doesn't seem like a problem to you guys that a significant part of the population has extra expenses simply to deal with the absolute basics. If there is a disparity, shouldn't this be compensated via taxes?I'd rather we all had as few taxes as possible and everyone were able to pay for this stuff by themselves... But that's too unrealistic an expectation, so the government does have to provide free education, health care and other basic needs (sadly, the quality of public services varies quite widely from place to place).
If the only extra expenses someone has to afford is paying a bit more for bigger shoes or having to buy a second serving of fries, then that person is doing fine. The problem is when they can't afford to pay for food, potable water, electricity, health care, education, etc.
I don't mind paying more if I consume more. That's only fair. I just prefer to pay straight to the producer rather than paying the government, who then pays the producer.
Sissyl is trolling the statist liberals here, not actually thinking taxes should pay for extra food for larger people.
More generously, using a Reductio ad absurdum argument to hopefully make us realize that government shouldn't be doing so many of the things it is doing.
You know me so well, thejeff. Thank you for understanding. It's not quite the truth, however. Regarding how society should deal with different people having different needs, it is a complex issue whatever way you look at it. Thing is, BOTH views that "men should pay more for eating more food" and "you should pay the same since you're paying for a service" are quite defensible. Unless, of course, you take the approach that any different needs are the sole responsibility of the one with those needs. Hemophiliacs are an interesting case: The substances they require to survive are famously expensive, weighing in at millions per year. If you DO want the state to pay for that, you also have to decide on a point where it's not the state's business anymore, and further, you need a justification for the point chosen.
I am not quite as much of a Randian as some people here think I am. There are very legitimate areas the state should pay for, via taxes. I just find it strange that larger people get no sympathy from the liberal statists, when so many others do.
You know me so well, thejeff. Thank you for understanding. It's not quite the truth, however. Regarding how society should deal with different people having different needs, it is a complex issue whatever way you look at it. Thing is, BOTH views that "men should pay more for eating more food" and "you should pay the same since you're paying for a service" are quite defensible. Unless, of course, you take the approach that any different needs are the sole responsibility of the one with those needs. Hemophiliacs are an interesting case: The substances they require to survive are famously expensive, weighing in at millions per year. If you DO want the state to pay for that, you also have to decide on a point where it's not the state's business anymore, and further, you need a justification for the point chosen.
I am not quite as much of a Randian as some people here think I am. There are very legitimate areas the state should pay for, via taxes. I just find it strange that larger people get no sympathy from the liberal statists, when so many others do.
Hmmm... I think if something is necessary for someone to live, but too expensive for the citizen to be able to afford, the government should pay for it... Admittedly, this means some people will benefit more than what they pay for, but those people are generally the ones with the least economical power.
I don't mind paying (reasonable) taxes for public education, health care, etc, even if I don't use those services... IMO, helping those who can't afford basic needs helps society as a whole, especially when it comes to education.
That said I still think the government should stay out of the citizen's life as much as possible.
Thejeff: The problem of basing it off economic need is that it becomes an economic drain on the person in question. Take the hemophiliac. Should he be forced to spend every dollar he might ever get his hands on to survive, with the state only going in when he absolutely can't survive without help? Is it reasonable that a poorer hemophiliac should have to pay far less for the exact same treatment?
|
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?
You mean like I do? Hoping that a store carries my 12 extra wide shoes? Having to either mail-order or go out of my way to a place that's harder to get to so I can buy clothes, and where I'm going to pay more for them than someone else?
Take a look at http://paizo.com/products/btpy97yo?Pathfinder-Society-Year-of-the-Sky-Key-T Shirt and tell me what you see for the prices. Because me, at 3X (down from my height of 5x) will pay 15% more than someone who's a large. And that's just one I found here.
We're big and we pay more. I accept that. That doesn't mean I need to like it.
@-Doodlebug: I think women should be able to go topless wherever they like, but then I think everyone should be able to be as naked as they like at all times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@-Doodlebug: I think women should be able to go topless wherever they like, but then I think everyone should be able to be as naked as they like at all times.Sadly, the likelihood of seeing a person naked in a nudist camp/topless rally/pagan retreat/whatever is inversely proportional to your desire to do so.
Yeah, though nudism is about freedom really, not titillation or sexuality.
While I am not a nudist(I love my many, many outfits) I do think clothes should be optional, and definitely not be seen as a moral issue.
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?
We do.
3x clothes cost more.
It's not a right, but it can be a necessity.
I don't manspread simply because I do not wish to touch people I don't know, and won't deny the use of a seat if I can help it.
I have flown on many a plane and been uncomfortable the entire effing flight just to avoid brushing up against the folks on either side of me.
If there was room though, it'd be on like donkey kong.
"Excuse me, may I sit there?" usually works. The person will automatically try to open space for you to sit (unless they are one of the douches, but thankfully, those are the exception, not the rule).Please. Unless it's just more of "this isn't really a feminist issue." Talking about a phenomenon that exemplifies the (most likely non-malicious in intent and unconscious) habit of many men to take up more space than women, to seemingly feel entitled to more space than women is an issue of gender equality. It's possible to address something like this while also caring about and addressing more severe gender inequalities. I'm not in the mood for straw-feminists.What makes you think they are doing it because they feel entitled to more space than women?
Most likely, the majority of those people simply don't realize the space they are occupying or don't have much choice due to height and whatnot... And some of them are douches who don't care if they are inconveniencing others (male or female), but I doubt any of them is doing it specifically because they think women deserve less space.
Not every reprehensible behavior is caused by sexism, you know...
Concerning the bolded portion, which method would you consider more effective at correcting this issue:
1) Silence
2) Sharing information
Which of the two options that I provided do you think that your explanation falls under, 1 or 2?
First time I ever heard about the issue was from a NYC "Man's Rights" group which put for the notion that manspreading is as essential a right as breastfeeding. (Something which had been a focus of heated debate some years past.)
Surely this is an exaggeration. Hopefully they are not serious.
I am afraid I have little interest in the men's movement. Its not that I disapprove, its just not for me. I read Iron John ages ago, but don't buy all the Jungian stuff.
And I went to one meeting of a group called "Men Against Sexual Assault", partly prompted by a friend nearly getting raped. It seemed to me it was a bunch of the men in Brisbane least likely to commit sexual assault talking about how to prevent it. Great aim, less so the execution. If I feel the need to get in touch with my masculinity I do martial arts.
They most certainly were. Manhattan's a big tent, so we get all kinds parking under it.First time I ever heard about the issue was from a NYC "Man's Rights" group which put for the notion that manspreading is as essential a right as breastfeeding. (Something which had been a focus of heated debate some years past.)Surely this is an exaggeration. Hopefully they are not serious.
Isn't a big part of being a man NOT asking for directions?
If you think that's bad, remember that typically women pay more for getting less in the areas of clothing. My spouse used to complain about that frequently before he transitioned to wearing male clothing.
Because its tailored. I pay more for a watch than a spoon even though they have the same amount of metal in them. The 11 dollar potato sacks I call a shirt can double as a Bedouin tent but likewise don't require a whole lot of manufacturing.
This thread is starting to remind me of PCU...
When we got to the scene where the womynists chide Jeremy Piven's love interest for participating in a "phallus naming," I turned to la Principessa and said "Baby, my hobgoblin wants to come home." She just rolled her eyes and said "I told you not to call it that."
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?You mean like I do? Hoping that a store carries my 12 extra wide shoes? Having to either mail-order or go out of my way to a place that's harder to get to so I can buy clothes, and where I'm going to pay more for them than someone else?
Take a look at http://paizo.com/products/btpy97yo?Pathfinder-Society-Year-of-the-Sky-Key-T Shirt and tell me what you see for the prices. Because me, at 3X (down from my height of 5x) will pay 15% more than someone who's a large. And that's just one I found here.
We're big and we pay more. I accept that. That doesn't mean I need to like it.
I have 9.5 Wide Width feet. Only very recently have I found shoes that don't hurt, and I think I may just buy every pair available to me just for the sheer novelty of shoes that fit without hurting. I'd gladly pay extra to have more options in terms of footwear.
I'm also an unusual pant leg length- an odd number. I only recently found ONE company that stocks pants in my length and I believe I may single handedly keep that company financially solvent.
When we got to the scene where the womynists chide Jeremy Piven's love interest for participating in a "phallus naming," I turned to la Principessa and said "Baby, my hobgoblin wants to come home." She just rolled her eyes and said "I told you not to call it that."
ROTFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not so sure that manspreading is a gender issue as opposed to a general decline in civic values. Most manspreaders are essentially men who eschew the notion of common courtesy to their fellow passengers, if not actively revolting against it.Given that there have been campaigns against it (under other names) and other bad subway behavior since before I was born, I doubt it has anything to do with a "general decline in civic values".
[tangent]
My History of Rome had a poster of some speech about 'declining standards' and 'youth disrespectful to their elders' and 'not like it was in my day' and 'sign of general moral decay' that was given before the Roman senate, a couple thousand years ago and sounded pretty much exactly like something you'd read in a newspaper editorial today about social decay and lack of civility and whatnot.Every generation is living in it's own end times, where things 'couldn't possibly get any worse.' And yet, we've mostly gotten rid gotten rid of slavery and trepanning and polio and infant mortality rates in the double digits, so it's a pretty groovy sort of 'end times,' compared to the glorious 'golden age' that always seems to have existed when our grandparents were our age.
[/tangent]
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?
A good number of shirts that are XXL or bigger do have a higher charge. So yes, and it is already happening.
If you think that's bad, remember that typically women pay more for getting less in the areas of clothing. My spouse used to complain about that frequently before he transitioned to wearing male clothing.So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?You mean like I do? Hoping that a store carries my 12 extra wide shoes? Having to either mail-order or go out of my way to a place that's harder to get to so I can buy clothes, and where I'm going to pay more for them than someone else?
Take a look at http://paizo.com/products/btpy97yo?Pathfinder-Society-Year-of-the-Sky-Key-T Shirt and tell me what you see for the prices. Because me, at 3X (down from my height of 5x) will pay 15% more than someone who's a large. And that's just one I found here.
We're big and we pay more. I accept that. That doesn't mean I need to like it.
Supply and demand maybe? It is a stereo type that has not been denied or refuted that women on average like to buy more clothing. Unisex clothing has a flat price and does not discriminate. So its only women's clothing then? I would like to see evidence of this statement though.