discolé monade

yesterday was the first time i made sure to only give 10%. why, you ask? because nothing says shitty fucking service like not being served. food and drinks were brought out by runners, that were already trying to cover their own sections. left some to go boxes and a dirty napkin on the booth chair above my head, and then expected me to use that. (which i already had to track down another server to get me the to go boxes) worst fucking service.

picked up some dumplings from costco, thought i'd give those a try. just saw grape pop tarts for the first time in forever.

one of my favorite cross live action/animation is 'cool world', who owns cool world?

so much just coming together nicely /s/

bob's burgers: the movie 10/10 loved the story, loved the animation, loved the score.

your company could sponser (or help sponser), a team. (?)

go help coach the rec. center kids.

well, i thought with leather breaking in, you need saddle soap. then some really good oil, and then all the wrapping and stuff.

round up. but way, way back, in the long ago, leaving 10% with a dime (10c) was considered 'shitty service' anything above 20% and a penny, meant excellent service.

i have no idea. unless you mean who liked the post, 'odd man rush' -i don't know that one either. ...or this one, for that matter.

only on netflix.

dm sent. i didn't have actual key lime juice the first time and just used reg. limes, and it was just fine.

who dat?

i have an excellent key lime cookie recipe if you're ever interested.

i just made some crownies (cookies that taste like brownies) w/choco chips. i made some meringue drops/orange and since i had the yolks. i made some lemon curd.

i am having a difficult time creating this menu. the design, do i do this? do i do that? i have a headache, and a possible catering gig on the 26th. and no menu.

i'm sorry naraku. i really am. this is such a heated subject, but as it was mentioned by isipid. it's exactly how divisive this is, and the language used. i know you're not some misogyinistic dangly bits holder. and i should have used quotes when using generalized terms. friends?

i didn't say you hate women. but, as this very discussion proves, it's exhausting for women to constantly have to defend, explain, or formulate their ideas so that men get a better understanding, especially since it's the same line of questioning. i never once said you hate women. i'm just fed up with all of this.

because if anyone read the article, they could see that 'Frontiers' was mentioned, and anyone could have just as easily searched for the info themselves. but, what is happening is that there are 3 (i assume men) that are asking a woman to defend her stance on the language being used, and that is what has been happening since...well forever. WOMEN had to fight for the right to vote, to work, to own a bank account, to play sports, to join the military, to get equal pay(still not happening), and a long list of WOMEN'S rights, that just keep getting pushed aside, trampled or dismantled, and now ROE v. WADE. it wasn't pregnant persons in 1972 that were fighting for the right to dictate what happens to their bodies, it was pregnant WOMEN.

there seem to be several articles that touch on the fact that gender shouldn't be inclusive preliminary paper that was accepted, and the final to be written soon. another that talks about AMR and gender inequalities and the gendered approach to breast cancer.

it's kind of like you're saying that i have no right to speak my peace on the matter, because 'the data isn't there', and that 'it's harmless'. i think, at this point, i'll will end defending my stance, as i have no need to. i will just agree, that a woman trying to explain this, is futile. silly me, i'll just let all the men decide what's best /s/

i guess i'm wondering why i'm tying to get my point across. *shrugs* we'll see what happens in the very near future. i don't know what data you're looking for. As governments and institutions move to make resources more gender-inclusive, 10 women’s health experts from the U.S., Europe and Asia say removing references to the sex of mothers could have damaging knock-on effects for women, according to an advance copy of a paper set to be published later this week obtained by Changing America.

ok. i get that this doesn't make sense to most of the men, and some women on this board. and maybe it's because i'm early gen x. let me try this. Replacing words like “women” with more gender-neutral language like “birth-giver” or “pregnant people” in research could have serious implications for women’s health, medical experts argue. As governments and institutions move to make resources more gender-inclusive, 10 women’s health experts from the U.S., Europe and Asia say removing references to the sex of mothers could have damaging knock-on effects for women, according to an advance copy of a paper set to be published later this week obtained by Changing America. “Desexing the language of female reproduction has been done with a view to being sensitive to individual needs and as beneficial, kind, and inclusive,” the authors write. “Yet, this kindness has delivered unintended consequences that have serious implications for women and children.” Those consequences include “dehumanizing” mothers, the authors argue, because alternative, gender-inclusive terms typically involve body parts or physiological processes, like “lactating parents” in place of “breastfeeding.” “Referring to individuals in this reduced, mechanistic way is commonly perceived as ‘othering’ and dehumanizing,” they write. Conversations about gender and pregnancy in the U.S. and elsewhere are often incredibly polarizing. When Missouri Rep. Cori Bush (D) last year used the term “birthing people” during a hearing, it ignited a firestorm of criticism online. Later, in June, the White House’s 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word “mothers” with “birthing people” in a section about public health funding. “I’m not the ‘birthing person’ of five boys, I’m their mother,” Ann Romney, the wife of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (R), tweeted shortly after the budget proposal was released. “The Biden Administration diminishing motherhood to ‘birthing person’ is simply insulting to all moms.” According to the paper, which is due to be released in the journal Frontiers in Global Women’s Health, Romney may have a point. Using gender-inclusive language in medical research and literature can reduce the visibility of women, the authors argue, and terms like “parents” or “families” as replacements for “mothers” can wrongly refer to fathers and other family members, effectively “diminishing and invisibilizing women.” “Women have unique experiences, needs and rights in relation to pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding that are not shared with others,” the authors write. “It cannot be assumed that a woman’s interests will align with those of her husband or partner.” The authors also argue that, in some cases, gender-neutral language could threaten the autonomy of women, and text referring to “birthing families” may suggest that other family members have rights regarding a woman’s decisions during and after birth. In the context of medical research, sex-based language is critical “due to sex-based oppression,” Jenny Gamble, a professor of midwifery with Coventry University and one of the paper’s co-authors, told the Sydney Morning Herald. “Confusing the idea of gender identity and the reality of sex risks adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women,” she said. “Sex [a reproductive category], gender [a societal role], and gender identity [an inner sense of self] are not synonymous but are being treated as if they are.” Gamble and her co-authors write that, in many cases, the use of gendered rather than sexed language is important to reinforce inclusivity and respect. Moving forward, a possible solution could be to develop a separate set of desexed materials for transgender and nonbinary people who do not identify as women.