Some Will Be Angry, I'm Just Sad

[Yisroel Markov]

Toys reflect people's cultural milieu (actual or desired). This is one
of the products sold by Mitzvah Kinder (available on Amazon, see
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Mitzvah%20Kinder )

It's called "The Seforim Room" -
http://www.amazon.com/Mitzvah-Kinder-Seforim-Room-Jewish/dp/B006OQIARY/

It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
just sad:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[Shelly]

On 5/6/2012 11:12 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> Toys reflect people's cultural milieu (actual or desired). This is one
> of the products sold by Mitzvah Kinder (available on Amazon, see
> http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Mitzvah%20Kinder )
>
> It's called "The Seforim Room" -
> http://www.amazon.com/Mitzvah-Kinder-Seforim-Room-Jewish/dp/B006OQIARY/
>
> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
> just sad:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/

Me too.

--
Shelly

[topazgalaxy]

On May 6, 11:12 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> Toys reflect people's cultural milieu (actual or desired). This is one
> of the products sold by Mitzvah Kinder (available on Amazon, seehttp://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Mitzvah%20Kinder)
>

> It's called "The Seforim Room" -http://www.amazon.com/Mitzvah-Kinder-Seforim-Room-Jewish/dp/B006OQIARY/

>
> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
> just sad:http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/
> --

> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA       Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world         DNRC

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

The detail on the back is very simple -- for young children's minds
and the minds of the anti feminists. :)

Thanks for bringing this up. If the woman were portrayed as "taking
care of her family" even that would have been an improvement from the
issue of "serving".
We need an article from Phyllis Chesler on this! :)

[lee]

On May 7, 4:12 am, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> Toys reflect people's cultural milieu (actual or desired). This is one
> of the products sold by Mitzvah Kinder (available on Amazon, seehttp://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Mitzvah%20Kinder)
>

> It's called "The Seforim Room" -http://www.amazon.com/Mitzvah-Kinder-Seforim-Room-Jewish/dp/B006OQIARY/

>
> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
> just sad:http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/
> --

> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA       Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world         DNRC

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

I think its hilarious, is it a collectors item from the 50's ?

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 7 במאי 2012 04:12:23 UTC+1, מאת Yisroel Markov:

>
> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
> just sad:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/
>

I don't think God treats function as synonymous with status. Some people study Torah to a high level and become experts, some people study a bit and know the basics, and some people don't study Torah but assist the scholars in their material needs.
They're all part of the same enterprise, and is shouldn't a source of shame or resentment if someone is not near the top. The yeshivah couldn't operate at all if no-one cleaned the toilets. Now you might say it would be a better yeshivah if the Rosh Yeshivah took his turn with the toilet duck, and there'd maybe be some truth in that. But almost no organisation works on that principle.

[Shelly]

Not the point at all, and I think you know that. The point here is that
the father's proper and ONLY job is to study torah and the mother's
proper and ONLY job is to care for him and the children.

Can you spell "pigeon-hole" and "subservient"?

--
Shelly

[Henry Goodman]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:jo8kdu$o96$1...@dont-email.me...

___________________________________________________________________________

Who pays the bills?


--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net

Shelly

[Shelly]

Who cares? Why is that even the least bit relevant?

What we have here is a case of attempted brain-washing of children to
accept stereotypes as being the "proper" way. I see absolutely *NO*
difference between this and brain-washing muslim women to accept that
they have to only expose their eyes and hide within a total shroud. It
totally objectifies women as possessions -- a concept I find totally
repulsive.

I also *little* difference to the brain-washing of Arab children to
become suicide bombers and kill Jews. After all, they would be doing it
"for the greater glory of Allah" by becoming a martyr. Now substitute
"torah scholar" for "martyr" and see what you get.

--
Shelly

[W. Baker]

malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote: : ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012
04:12:23 UTC+1, ??? Yisroel Markov: : > : > It's a simple play set for

Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve? Is it fit
that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
serve, learningit from their Mothers.

Wendy Baker

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 14:47:10 +0000 (UTC), "Henry Goodman"
<henry....@virgin.net> said:

>"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
>news:jo8kdu$o96$1...@dont-email.me...
>On 5/7/2012 9:52 AM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012 04:12:23 UTC+1, ??? Yisroel Markov:

>>>
>>> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
>>> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
>>> just sad:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/
>>>
>> I don't think God treats function as synonymous with status. Some people
>> study Torah to a high level and become experts, some people study a bit
>> and know the basics, and some people don't study Torah but assist the
>> scholars in their material needs.
>> They're all part of the same enterprise, and is shouldn't a source of
>> shame or resentment if someone is not near the top. The yeshivah couldn't
>> operate at all if no-one cleaned the toilets. Now you might say it would
>> be a better yeshivah if the Rosh Yeshivah took his turn with the toilet
>> duck, and there'd maybe be some truth in that. But almost no organisation
>> works on that principle.
>
>Not the point at all, and I think you know that. The point here is that
>the father's proper and ONLY job is to study torah and the mother's
>proper and ONLY job is to care for him and the children.
>
>Can you spell "pigeon-hole" and "subservient"?
>___________________________________________________________________________
>
>Who pays the bills?

Probably the mother, who is not part of this set. (I think "Faigy" is
a sister.)

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 7 במאי 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, מאת W. Baker:

>
> Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve? Is it fit
> that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
> serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>

The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain a healthy life.

Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.

[cindys]

-----
I'm willing to answer it. Perhaps the family should hire a chef and
then all the family members can study torah all day long.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[W. Baker]

malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote: : ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012
21:02:37 UTC+1, ??? W. Baker: : > : > Ah, but and the girl learn and

Ah, but it doesn't always have to be the woman working and cooking so the
husband can sit and learn all day. I know quite a few Modern Orthodox
couples where both are studying Torah and teaching adn sharing houshold
and child care chores, in fact I saw several women last night being hoored
at the Drisha Institutes for their achievements in assuming leadership
positions teaching, serving as Yoetzot Halacha , Teaching gemara, etc
several years after attending Drisha.

There is the role model for little girls, not acting as servant to the
boys and men.

Wendy Baker

[Gary]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 01:55:32 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On May 7, 7:22 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, ??? W. Baker:

>>
>> > Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve?  Is it fit
>> > that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
>> > serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>>
>> The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain a healthy life.
>>
>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.
>-----
>I'm willing to answer it. Perhaps the family should hire a chef and
>then all the family members can study torah all day long.

So the chef wil be deprived of the opportunity of studying torah?

[lee]

My dad was the best cook in our house. & although my grandmother was
very good at making kickles, my granddad made the best vorst in egg &
chips ever

[Shelly]

I will, I will, I will!!!!!!!

"The most qualified", that's who. That means the brightest and the
those so inclined will study Torah and the most culinarily talented and
so inclined will do the cooking -- and some will do *both* -- and *most*
will *not* study Torah all day long, or at all.

Notice, Malcomb, that this answers your question 100% and does not
reference a gender at all.

On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here
is why:
1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived
quite well even before they started cooking their meals.

On a second side note, if I were hiring someone I would want the most
capable and qualified for the position and I would be 100% gender blind
in my decision.

On a third side note, I work full time and I do about 2/3 of the cooking
in my home. It's no big deal, not with all these modern appliances.
It's also not like we are preparing gourmet meals. (We belong to a
gourmet club and once a month it is a big deal to do that kind of cooking).

--
Shelly

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 8 במאי 2012 02:55:32 UTC+1, מאת cindys:

Exactly. Realistically the Rosh Yeshivah isn't going to do his own cooking. So someone's got to do it for him. If we decide that it's beneath the dignity of a Jewish woman to cook, the only solution is to get in the goyim.

This is a modern trend. Companies don't enroll cleaning ladies or cooks on the staff, because they like to think of themselves as equal status, team-working, happy bands of workers. So the cleaning ladies are brought in on outside contract, so they're not one of the company. They don't get the pension, they're not invited to the annual bash, the contractor tells them if they've got to clock in or are trusted to do their own hours, and so on.

There are huge dangers with this. But people can't see it.

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <job2rp$pvn$1...@dont-email.me> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:

>On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here=20

>is why:
>1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and

>2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived=20

>quite well even before they started cooking their meals.

I think Malcolm's right on this one - I recall seeing a similar study not
too long ago. Cooking removes some nutrients, but it also frees up others
making them available for digestion. It also sterilizes the food making it
safer to eat. I think I read something from Mark Bittman about this
recently, who showed it isn't really possible to live on a purely raw
diet, not in any "natural" sense, that raw food proponents are a)
incorporating supplements and vitamins, and b) eating food that's actually
highly processed, even though it may not be "cooked"

My understanding is that some anthropologists think that in fact it was
only when humans started cooking their meals that they did in fact start
becoming truly successful - human as we know it today.

>On a second side note, if I were hiring someone I would want the most=20
>capable and qualified for the position and I would be 100% gender blind=20
>in my decision.

>On a third side note, I work full time and I do about 2/3 of the cooking=20
>in my home. It's no big deal, not with all these modern appliances.=20
>It's also not like we are preparing gourmet meals. (We belong to a=20
>gourmet club and once a month it is a big deal to do that kind of cooking=
>).

I do pretty much all the cooking in my house (except our babysitter feeds
the kids dinner during the week).

--s
--

[cindys]

On May 8, 9:01 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום שלישי, 8 במאי 2012 02:55:32 UTC+1, מאת cindys:> On May 7, 7:22 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > > Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.
> > -----
> > I'm willing to answer it. Perhaps the family should hire a chef and
> > then all the family members can study torah all day long.
> > Best regards,
> > ---Cindy S.
>
> Exactly. Realistically the Rosh Yeshivah isn't going to do his own cooking. So someone's got to do it for him. If we decide that it's beneath the dignity of a Jewish woman to cook, the only solution is to get in the goyim.

Huh?? Maybe the chef is Jewish? Maybe the chef is a Jewish woman,
even? Who said anything at all about "getting in the goyim?" (sic).
Your statement is a total non sequitur. Isn't your field biochemical
research?

>
> This is a modern trend. Companies don't enroll cleaning ladies or cooks on the staff

Another non sequitur. Since when is a private family "a company?"

>because they like to think of themselves as equal status, team-working, happy bands of workers.

I have no idea what you are talking about at all. I have never heard
of a corporation where company employees in a totally unrelated field
(stockbrokers, for example, or insurance salespeople) are expected to
prepare company dinners and clean the toilets.

>So the cleaning ladies are brought in on outside contract, so they're not one of the company. They don't get the pension, they're not invited to the annual bash, the contractor tells them if they've got to clock in or are trusted to do their own hours, and so on.

That's exactly right. Corporations sign a contract with outside
cleaning companies who supply a cleaning staff. The cleaning people
are either independent contractors or they are employees of the
cleaning company, which typically has contracts to clean many
different companies. If they are employees of the cleaning company,
the cleaning company hold their own dinners and provides the benefits
etc for the cleaning people. As far as pensions are concerned, in the
USA, they are more or less a thing of the past for everyone (we have
401Ks supposedly as replacements), so I would assume the cleaning
people do not receive a pension nor do the stockbrokers or insurance
people who work at the company whose toilets they are cleaning.

I have no idea what is the point of your post or how this relates to
anything Jewish or the topic of this thread. Really scary if you ask
me.

>
> There are huge dangers with this. But people can't see it.

Oh, there's something dangerous here, all right, but it's not what you
think it is.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

On 5/8/2012 9:01 AM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום שלישי, 8 במאי 2012 02:55:32 UTC+1, מאת cindys:
>> On May 7, 7:22 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>
>>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.
>> -----
>> I'm willing to answer it. Perhaps the family should hire a chef and
>> then all the family members can study torah all day long.
>> Best regards,
>> ---Cindy S.
>>
> Exactly. Realistically the Rosh Yeshivah isn't going to do his own cooking.

Why not? Has he not two hands? Does he not have a brain? Is he
incapable of turning on a stove?

Those of us who have full time jobs *DO* take lunch breaks, coffee
breaks, etc. We are not doing our jobs every minute of the day.

IOW, there is time!!!!!

> So someone's got to do it for him. If we decide that it's beneath the dignity of a Jewish woman to cook,
> the only solution is to get in the goyim.

No, not all. You can &^)(*&(*^^ do it yourself!

>
> This is a modern trend. Companies don't enroll cleaning ladies or cooks on the staff, because they like to think of
> themselves as equal status, team-working, happy bands of workers. So the cleaning ladies are brought in on outside contract,
> so they're not one of the company.

Your reasoning is so off-the-wall as to be completely laughable.

> They don't get the pension, they're not invited to the annual bash, the contractor tells them if they've got to clock in
> or are trusted to do their own hours, and so on.

Now you see why companies hire outside contractors:
1 - It is cheaper for them
2 - They can concentrate on what they do best in their own business
3 - It is cheaper for them
4 - The outside people are specialists in this and do a better job
5 - It is cheaper for them

>
> There are huge dangers with this. But people can't see it.

How old are you?

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 5/8/2012 9:38 AM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In<job2rp$pvn$1...@dont-email.me> Shelly<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>
>> On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here=20
>> is why:
>> 1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
>> 2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived=20
>> quite well even before they started cooking their meals.
>
> I think Malcolm's right on this one - I recall seeing a similar study not
> too long ago. Cooking removes some nutrients, but it also frees up others
> making them available for digestion. It also sterilizes the food making it
> safer to eat. I think I read something from Mark Bittman about this
> recently, who showed it isn't really possible to live on a purely raw
> diet, not in any "natural" sense, that raw food proponents are a)
> incorporating supplements and vitamins, and b) eating food that's actually
> highly processed, even though it may not be "cooked"

I still think he is wrong. Let him produce a reference.

>
> My understanding is that some anthropologists think that in fact it was
> only when humans started cooking their meals that they did in fact start
> becoming truly successful - human as we know it today.

More likely it is a side effect. When they started cooking their food,
they had more established communities and were able to increase
population by the combining of skills and had better protection from
predators. I doubt it had to do with cooked food being more nutritious.

>
>> On a second side note, if I were hiring someone I would want the most=20
>> capable and qualified for the position and I would be 100% gender blind=20
>> in my decision.
>
>> On a third side note, I work full time and I do about 2/3 of the cooking=20
>> in my home. It's no big deal, not with all these modern appliances.=20
>> It's also not like we are preparing gourmet meals. (We belong to a=20
>> gourmet club and once a month it is a big deal to do that kind of cooking=
>> ).
>
> I do pretty much all the cooking in my house (except our babysitter feeds
> the kids dinner during the week).

What????? You and I do "women's" work??????


--
Shelly

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <job82l$nvh$1...@dont-email.me> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:

>I still think he is wrong. Let him produce a reference.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=raw-veggies-are-healthier

"Fact or Fiction: Raw veggies are healthier than cooked ones

Cooking is crucial to our diets. It helps us digest food without expending
huge amounts of energy. It softens food, such as cellulose fiber and raw
meat, that our small teeth, weak jaws and digestive systems aren't
equipped to handle. And while we might hear from raw foodists that cooking
kills vitamins and minerals in food (while also denaturing enzymes that
aid digestion), it turns out raw vegetables are not always healthier."

--s
--

[Shelly]

OK, I read the who article. It seems that it is a mixed bag and there
are tradeoffs as to which is better for what vegetable. Note, also,
that this was only for vegetables. It said nothing about fish (which
tastes great raw). While it mentions fruits, it doesn't discuss their
cooking at all. Meat is entirely absent in the study. Lastly, there
were a lot of "may"s, "might"s, and "could"s.

IOW -- inconclusive.

Also, according to the article, the only "good" cooking was boiling of
steaming. Frying was very bad.

--
Shelly

[Gary]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 12:50:48 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:

>On 5/7/2012 7:22 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, ??? W. Baker:

>>>
>>> Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve? Is it fit
>>> that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
>>> serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>>>
>> The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain a healthy life.
>>
>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.
>
>I will, I will, I will!!!!!!!
>
>"The most qualified", that's who. That means the brightest and the
>those so inclined will study Torah and the most culinarily talented and
>so inclined will do the cooking -- and some will do *both* -- and *most*
>will *not* study Torah all day long, or at all.
>
>Notice, Malcomb, that this answers your question 100% and does not
>reference a gender at all.
>
>On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here
>is why:
>1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
>2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived
>quite well even before they started cooking their meals.

Actually, we don't: we have evolved.

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <jobg1v$al3$1...@dont-email.me> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:

>OK, I read the who article. It seems that it is a mixed bag and there
>are tradeoffs as to which is better for what vegetable. Note, also,
>that this was only for vegetables. It said nothing about fish (which
>tastes great raw). While it mentions fruits, it doesn't discuss their
>cooking at all. Meat is entirely absent in the study. Lastly, there
>were a lot of "may"s, "might"s, and "could"s.

The article was specifically about vegetables - it was just the first
credible-looking one I happened to stumble on. Fish do taste great raw,
provided you eat them within an hour or two of catching them (no
refrigeration back then, remember)

Regarding meat - same caveat, a nice fresh steak tartare can be delicious.
But when's the last time you tried chewing on a raw, three-day-old haunch
of deer? Doesn't sound too pleasant to me.

And how about a nice stalk of raw wheat? Yum!

>IOW -- inconclusive.

Nonsense. Highly conclusive.

>Also, according to the article, the only "good" cooking was boiling of
>steaming. Frying was very bad.

Sure. Nobody said anything different.

--s
--

[Herman Rubin]

On 2012-05-08, Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 7:22 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, ??? W. Baker:

>>> Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve? Is it fit
>>> that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
>>> serve, learningit from their Mothers.

>> The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only
>>raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's
>>almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain
>>a healthy life.

>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day
>>long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the
>>question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be
>>willing to answer.

> I will, I will, I will!!!!!!!

> "The most qualified", that's who. That means the brightest and the
> those so inclined will study Torah and the most culinarily talented and
> so inclined will do the cooking -- and some will do *both* -- and *most*
> will *not* study Torah all day long, or at all.

Where does it say to study Torah "all day long"? Most of the
early rabbis were employed at other jobs, not as congregational
rabbis.

> Notice, Malcomb, that this answers your question 100% and does not
> reference a gender at all.

> On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here
> is why:
> 1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
> 2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived
> quite well even before they started cooking their meals.

Maybe not all their meals, but the use of fire for cooking
goes back hundreds of thousands of years.

> On a second side note, if I were hiring someone I would want the most
> capable and qualified for the position and I would be 100% gender blind
> in my decision.

> On a third side note, I work full time and I do about 2/3 of the cooking
> in my home. It's no big deal, not with all these modern appliances.
> It's also not like we are preparing gourmet meals. (We belong to a
> gourmet club and once a month it is a big deal to do that kind of cooking).

I have been full time for decades, and even when my late wife was
alive, I did almost all of the cooking, gourmet or not.


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[lee]

On May 8, 2:38 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:

> In <job2rp$pv...@dont-email.me> Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
>
> >On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study".  Here=20
> >is why:
> >1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
> >2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived=20
> >quite well even before they started cooking their meals.
>

I think I read about that too, but cant really remember the details.
Something about the cooking process introducing toxins or something. I
dont really like cold food or salads so I ignored it.

[Shelly]

On 5/8/2012 2:16 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2012-05-08, Shelly<shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 7:22 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>> ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, ??? W. Baker:
>
>>>> Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve? Is it fit
>>>> that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
>>>> serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>
>>> The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only
>>> raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's
>>> almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain
>>> a healthy life.
>
>>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day
>>> long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the
>>> question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be
>>> willing to answer.
>
>> I will, I will, I will!!!!!!!
>
>> "The most qualified", that's who. That means the brightest and the
>> those so inclined will study Torah and the most culinarily talented and
>> so inclined will do the cooking -- and some will do *both* -- and *most*
>> will *not* study Torah all day long, or at all.
>
> Where does it say to study Torah "all day long"? Most of the
> early rabbis were employed at other jobs, not as congregational
> rabbis.

Uh, I was responding to what *Malcomb* said. Look above and see where
*he* used that term to justify the gender stereotyping. No, Herman,
there is no requirement to do that.

>
>> Notice, Malcomb, that this answers your question 100% and does not
>> reference a gender at all.
>
>> On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here
>> is why:
>> 1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
>> 2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived
>> quite well even before they started cooking their meals.
>
> Maybe not all their meals, but the use of fire for cooking
> goes back hundreds of thousands of years.
>
>> On a second side note, if I were hiring someone I would want the most
>> capable and qualified for the position and I would be 100% gender blind
>> in my decision.
>
>> On a third side note, I work full time and I do about 2/3 of the cooking
>> in my home. It's no big deal, not with all these modern appliances.
>> It's also not like we are preparing gourmet meals. (We belong to a
>> gourmet club and once a month it is a big deal to do that kind of cooking).
>
> I have been full time for decades, and even when my late wife was
> alive, I did almost all of the cooking, gourmet or not.

So, like Steve and me you, too, do/did "women's" work. :-)

--
Shelly

[Gary]

As they say, if you want to have something done properly, do it
yourself! LOL

[mir...@actcom.co.il]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 2:22:28 AM UTC+3, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.

How about Sharing ,,,,, any way didn`t the Torah write that one should not make the Tora a Kardom Lakhpor bo ... not capitalize on it ?
mirjam

[mm]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 15:33:36 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
<s...@panix.com> wrote:

>In <job82l$nvh$1...@dont-email.me> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>
>>I still think he is wrong. Let him produce a reference.
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=raw-veggies-are-healthier
>
>"Fact or Fiction: Raw veggies are healthier than cooked ones
>
>Cooking is crucial to our diets. It helps us digest food without expending
>huge amounts of energy. It softens food, such as cellulose fiber and raw
>meat, that our small teeth, weak jaws

I don't think I've ever eaten deer meat, and I've never eaten lamb or
chicken or any other bird raw, but I have eaten beef raw many times,
and it's not fully true that cooking softens raw beef. AFAIK,
cooking hardens beef, makes it tougher at first, but later in the
cooking, it makes it softer. The time between medium and well, or
between well and very well done will make a pot roast soft.

I started off wanting my meat rare, but sometimes I would mess up and
cook it too long and it was medium or well-done. So I started taking
it out earlier, sometimes too early. But I ate it anyway Later I
would get impatient when I got hom, put some on the stove or in the
oven and save a small bit to eat right away, raw. Then I started to
eat more of it, and it can be so soft it "melts in your mouth", more
than after cooking it. Sometimes I miss the warmth and would cook
some of it a little, and it gets tougher long before it gets softer. .

Some cuts are tougher but slicing them thin tends to make up for that.

I've had raw ground beef too, steak tartaer, but it's no nearly as
good as rib roast, for example. Maybe if it were marinated in wine
or something, it would be different, but the ground beef by itself is
not nearly as good as other cuts, nor is it as good as a good
rare-cooked hamburger. IMO of course, but the emphasis on steak
tartare as the only good raw meat that's ever discussed is misleading.

FWIW I've gotten food poisoning a couple times, and once (out of many
times) got sick from friedfood, and a few other times food has caused
some problem or other, but I've never gotten sick from raw beef.

> and digestive systems aren't
>equipped to handle. And while we might hear from raw foodists that cooking
>kills vitamins and minerals in food (while also denaturing enzymes that
>aid digestion), it turns out raw vegetables are not always healthier."
>
>--s

--

Meir

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 12:50:48 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 5/7/2012 7:22 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, ??? W. Baker:

>>>
>>> Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve? Is it fit
>>> that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
>>> serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>>>
>> The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain a healthy life.
>>
>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.

[shrug] I can answer it. It's a question of competitive advantage in a
given use-of-time situation.

I do almost no cooking, not being good at it. (I do put up bread in
the bread machine, that being an easy enough algorhythm.) I contribute
to regular chores by washing dishes, taking care of small repairs, and
the like. My sons are expected to chip in, as well, mostly by
cleaning. E.g., they all have assigned Friday afternoon tasks. (But
one of them likes making certain breakfast foods, so that's what he
does.)

Obviously, what raises people's hackles about that toy is the
implication that in a seforim room, "serving" males is *all* a girl is
good for.

>I will, I will, I will!!!!!!!

Whoa, keep you shirt on! :-)

>"The most qualified", that's who. That means the brightest and the
>those so inclined will study Torah and the most culinarily talented and
>so inclined will do the cooking -- and some will do *both* -- and *most*
>will *not* study Torah all day long, or at all.
>
>Notice, Malcomb, that this answers your question 100% and does not
>reference a gender at all.
>
>On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here
>is why:
>1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
>2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived
>quite well even before they started cooking their meals.

That was when they ate raw meat. I've mentioned previously the Inuit
tribe that subsists, to this day, entirely on raw walrus and zero
plants.

BTW, I think our bodies *have* changed from those distant times. IIRC
we have shorter intestinal tracts than 10,000 years ago. A mutation
that eliminates wisdom teeth has been documented. Some human
populations have developed lactose tolerance, others a tolerance for
alcohol. There're probably others.

[snip]

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 8 במאי 2012 15:14:48 UTC+1, מאת shel...@thevillages.net:

>
> Now you see why companies hire outside contractors:
> 1 - It is cheaper for them
> 2 - They can concentrate on what they do best in their own business
> 3 - It is cheaper for them
> 4 - The outside people are specialists in this and do a better job
> 5 - It is cheaper for them
>

A major reason is to avoid creating a contract of employment between the cleaner and the organisation which needs its office cleaned. There might be some economies of specialisation as well, but that's not what I'm interested in here, and they can't be that high, because in the not too distant past it was rare to hire contract cleaners.
It's what happens when you decide that a job you rely on isn't really appropriate for your type of people. Someone has to do it, so you try to deny that person's humanity by excluding them from the class of employees and hiding them away behind a legal contract with an outside agency. That way you're not responsible for them, they're just faceless operatives. There's a huge moral distance between deciding on contract cleaners and real hardcore exploitation, I wouldn't for a moment deny, but it's a step onto that slippery slope.

[cindys]

On May 8, 6:38 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

snip

> It's what happens when you decide that a job you rely on isn't really appropriate for your type of people. Someone has to do it, so you try to deny that person's humanity by excluding them from the class of employees and hiding them away behind a legal contract with an outside agency. That way you're not responsible for them, they're just faceless operatives. There's a huge moral distance between deciding on contract cleaners and real hardcore exploitation, I wouldn't for a moment deny, but it's a step onto that slippery slope.

-----
Oh baloney! Companies hire an outside service because they want to
deny the humanity of the people who work for that outside service? How
about the outside service itself? What is their motive in establishing
such a business in the first place? I think it's maybe to make money,
but then again, maybe they are trying to deny the humanity of their
employees, as well. And all of this is just a step away from
"exploitation?" How is it "exploitation" to hire someone to do a
legitimate job and pay the person for his/her services?

Maybe you live in a different universe, but in the universe where I
live (in the USA, anyway), hiring contract workers to provide all
sorts of services is commonplace. When my husband and I were first
married, he was on contract as a computer programmer. I don't think
anybody was trying to deny his humanity or exploit him. The way
contract agencies function is that they often consider the contractors
to be *their* employees, and the contract agency is the one that is
providing the company dinners and health benefits. I, too, have been
"hired" by companies as an independent contractor. In fact, I have
been self-employed and I am my own LLC (limited liability
corporation). I preferred that a million times over to being someone
else's "employee." Was I being exploited too?

I think what you have written above is totally insulting and degrading
to the independent contractors of the world, which number in the
hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) in the USA.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per cindys:

>Maybe you live in a different universe, but in the universe where I
>live (in the USA, anyway), hiring contract workers to provide all
>sorts of services is commonplace. When my husband and I were first
>married, he was on contract as a computer programmer. I don't think
>anybody was trying to deny his humanity or exploit him.

Having worked as a contract computer programmer since 1994, I
have to agree with you.

No vacation, no sick time, no medical coverage, no higher
"overtime" or "holiday" rates. I'm like Kleenex: use me when you
need me, discard me when you're done.

I do not feel the least bit dehumanized.

When I work, I get paid - for every *minute*. When I don't
work, I don't get paid... it's very simple. And every minute I
work, I know somebody thinks I'm worth the money - or they'd show
me the door.

Now, if you ask me as a young person whether I'd choose that or a
"real" job with vacation, sick time, extra pay for overtime, a
retirement plan, rules controlling how easy it is to fire me, and
so-forth... I'd choose the "real" job.

But that's economics and self-interest. It is nothing to do with
how humanized or de-humanized I feel.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Shelly]

So, IYO, I should make the cleaning woman who does my home/office once
every other week and employee of my company?

Get real!

--
Shelly

[cindys]

On May 8, 10:36 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per cindys:
>
> >Maybe you live in a different universe, but in the universe where I
> >live (in the USA, anyway), hiring contract workers to provide all
> >sorts of services is commonplace. When my husband and I were first
> >married, he was on contract as a computer programmer. I don't think
> >anybody was trying to deny his humanity or exploit him.
>
> Having worked as a contract computer programmer since 1994, I
> have to agree with you.
>
> No vacation, no sick time, no medical coverage, no higher
> "overtime" or "holiday" rates.  I'm like Kleenex: use me when you
> need me, discard me when you're done.

It depends on the company. When my husband was a contractor, he did
get sick time, medical coverage, and vacation. He was even paid for
the time he was "on the bench" (if it did not exceed 6 weeks at a
stretch).

>
> I do not feel the least bit dehumanized.
>
> When I work, I get paid - for every *minute*.   When I don't
> work, I don't get paid... it's very simple.   And every minute I
> work, I know somebody thinks I'm worth the money - or they'd show
> me the door.
>
> Now, if you ask me as a young person whether I'd choose that or a
> "real" job with vacation, sick time, extra pay for overtime, a
> retirement plan, rules controlling how easy it is to fire me, and
> so-forth... I'd choose the "real" job.

And when I was offered the option of being an employee versus
remaining self-employed as an independent contractor, I chose the
latter. I was paid by the project not by the hour, and I preferred the
flexibility of not having to answer to anyone for how I was spending
my time. And I also didn't want to be limited to working only 40 hours/
week.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

When I was an employee, until about 1990, my top salary was about
$60,000. For the next 10 years I was an independent contractor
(programming) through the contract agencies for periods of 6 to 18
months. My last one earned me about $175,000/year. If that is
"exploitation", then PLEASE exploit me.

Now I have my own Chapter S corporation. I keep my rates low enough to
be a great deal for the company with which I have had a contract for the
last four years, but still enough to yield around six figures (working
from home, no less). If that is "exploitation", then PLEASE exploit me.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

...and as a contract programmer, the hourly rate is at *least* 50%
higher per hour than the salaried employee -- and that is if he *only*
puts in 40 hours per week instead of the usual and expect 45-50 per week.

--
Shelly

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 9 במאי 2012 05:33:19 UTC+1, מאת shel...@thevillages.net:

>
> When I was an employee, until about 1990, my top salary was about
> $60,000. For the next 10 years I was an independent contractor
> (programming) through the contract agencies for periods of 6 to 18
> months. My last one earned me about $175,000/year. If that is
> "exploitation", then PLEASE exploit me.
>

A few years ago a friend of mine left university, and had difficulty getting a job. But eventually he found something selling life insurance. He was pepped up, saying "I am now self-employed". I was older and I knew better, and of course the job only lasted a few weeks.

However lawyers, surgeons, bond traders and people like that are also often legally self-employed, even though the public perceives them as working for the law firm, hospital, or bank. The point is that you can't look at someone's technical status and determine the real motive for that status. A contract programmer on $175,000 a year is in a very different social position to a contract cleaner on minimum wage.

[Susan S]

In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net>:

>On 5/7/2012 7:22 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, ??? W. Baker:

>>>
>>> Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve? Is it fit
>>> that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
>>> serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>>>
>> The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain a healthy life.
>>
>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.
>
>I will, I will, I will!!!!!!!
>
>"The most qualified", that's who. That means the brightest and the
>those so inclined will study Torah and the most culinarily talented and
>so inclined will do the cooking -- and some will do *both* -- and *most*
>will *not* study Torah all day long, or at all.
>
>Notice, Malcomb, that this answers your question 100% and does not
>reference a gender at all.
>
>On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here
>is why:
>1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
>2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived
>quite well even before they started cooking their meals.
>

Not exactly. Not all food is the same with respect to cooking. Some
plants contain cyanogens which turn into cyanide if chewed, that must be
removed by boiling. Other plants have proteins that interfere with
digestion and require longer boiling to inactivate them.

But those are not nutrient problems. While it is true that cooking
generally diminishes nutrients in fruits and veggies, there are
important exceptions. When heated, the long chains of sugar molecules
that make up starch unlink and are more available to be broken down by
our bodies' enzymes. Beta-carotene, the precursor to Vit. A and
lycopene, an important antioxidant, and some other carotenoid pigments
are not released efficiently by chewing and the disruption of plant
tissues by cooking makes them easier to get.

There are other reasons to cook certain plants; these are just some
examples.

Also [short version] eating cooked meat takes less energy than eating
raw meat. Cooking meat kills [most] toxins and parasites. Again, not
about nutrients exactly unless you mean available calories, but good
reasons to cook.



I could discuss your second point, but I don't know which distant
ancestors you mean.

>On a second side note, if I were hiring someone I would want the most
>capable and qualified for the position and I would be 100% gender blind
>in my decision.
>
>On a third side note, I work full time and I do about 2/3 of the cooking
>in my home. It's no big deal, not with all these modern appliances.
>It's also not like we are preparing gourmet meals. (We belong to a
>gourmet club and once a month it is a big deal to do that kind of cooking).

Susan Silberstein

[Gary]

And when there are cutbacks, people like you are the first to be cut.

[Gary]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:36:39 +0000 (UTC), "(PeteCresswell)"
<x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

>Per cindys:
>>Maybe you live in a different universe, but in the universe where I
>>live (in the USA, anyway), hiring contract workers to provide all
>>sorts of services is commonplace. When my husband and I were first
>>married, he was on contract as a computer programmer. I don't think
>>anybody was trying to deny his humanity or exploit him.
>
>Having worked as a contract computer programmer since 1994, I
>have to agree with you.
>
>No vacation, no sick time, no medical coverage, no higher
>"overtime" or "holiday" rates. I'm like Kleenex: use me when you
>need me, discard me when you're done.
>
>I do not feel the least bit dehumanized.

As a temp, you should - if you have any self-respect at all.

[Shelly]

Supply and demand. If there are not enough cleaners, then the contract
cleaning company will offer perks such as vacation time, etc.

Remember that *that* company is also in the business of making money.
It will want to keep the good ones so that it can keep its contracts
with other firms.

Where I live I pay a lawn service company to do the mowing and another
to do the trimming and fertilizing and yet another to take care of the
air conditioning and so on. I don't concern myself with whether their
people are contract or regular employees -- but those people tend to be
with their companies for years. My question to you is should I hire
someone into my company (which is in my home) to do all those things so
that the people would not be "exploited", or should I continue to pay
for specific services?

Don't bother. I know what I will keep on doing.

--
Shelly

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <jocn0b$nsu$2...@dont-email.me> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:

>puts in 40 hours per week instead of the usual and expect 45-50 per week.

>On 5/8/2012 10:36 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per cindys:
>>> Maybe you live in a different universe, but in the universe where I

>...and as a contract programmer, the hourly rate is at *least* 50%
>higher per hour than the salaried employee -- and that is if he *only*

I definitely enjoyed working as a contract employee, but there are
trade-offs. The hourly rate is higher, but if you're getting a 1099 then
you're paying the full social security amount, buying your own health
insurance, you don't get a 401k match, and no vacation or sick days.

The "exploitation" comes in, I think, when a worker is treated in all
respects like an employee (i.e., required to come into work for set hours,
etc.) but is paid via 1099 rather than W-2. Used to be rampant in the
software field but as I understand it the IRS has cracked down.

--s
--

[cindys]

On May 9, 11:13 am, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:

-----
More than that, the companies themselves have really cracked down on
it. About 20+ years ago, there was an incident at Eastman Kodak, where
someone had been on contract for years and was treated in all respects
as an employee in terms of being invited to participate in social
gatherings, attend meetings, etc. Obviously, this person did not
receive healthcare or vacation benefits.

To make a long story short, after a number of years, Kodak decided
that they no longer had need for this woman's services and either
cancelled her contract or just didn't renew it. She sued Kodak and
won, arguing that since she had been treated like an employee for so
many years, to all intents and purposes she *was* an employee. After
that, Kodak placed limitations on contractors (not invited to social
gatherings, not invited to certain meetings, not allowed to be on
contract for greater than 1 year in the same dept, etc) to avoid this
type of thing ever happening again.

In fact, when I was on contract for my last company, part of the
requirement was that I take out Disability insurance for my employees
(even though I don't have any employees). It cost me $300/year
(didn't include me in the plan, BTW). The reason was so that by my
having Disability insurance for the (nonexistent) employees of my
corporation, I could never come back and say regarding the company
where I was an independent contractor "I was an employee, and
therefore, you owe me...."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

On 5/9/2012 11:13 AM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In<jocn0b$nsu$2...@dont-email.me> Shelly<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>
>> puts in 40 hours per week instead of the usual and expect 45-50 per week.
>> On 5/8/2012 10:36 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>> Per cindys:
>>>> Maybe you live in a different universe, but in the universe where I
>
>> ...and as a contract programmer, the hourly rate is at *least* 50%
>> higher per hour than the salaried employee -- and that is if he *only*
>
> I definitely enjoyed working as a contract employee, but there are
> trade-offs. The hourly rate is higher, but if you're getting a 1099 then
> you're paying the full social security amount, buying your own health
> insurance, you don't get a 401k match, and no vacation or sick days.

Yes, but after 40 hours you still get paid for your time. Even with all
of that, I was much better off on contract.

>
> The "exploitation" comes in, I think, when a worker is treated in all
> respects like an employee (i.e., required to come into work for set hours,
> etc.) but is paid via 1099 rather than W-2. Used to be rampant in the
> software field but as I understand it the IRS has cracked down.

They did that in the mid-90's. After the IRS ruling, companies would
not go beyond a year on a contract and the contractor had to be away for
six months before he/she could have another contract with that company.
I hated that ruling. It meant that after 18 months I had to leave a
cushy contract. I returned several years later for another contract and
that is when I went to Japan six times in the one year.

--
Shelly

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per cindys:

>More than that, the companies themselves have really cracked down on
>it. About 20+ years ago, there was an incident at Eastman Kodak, where
>someone had been on contract for years and was treated in all respects
>as an employee in terms of being invited to participate in social
>gatherings, attend meetings, etc. Obviously, this person did not
>receive healthcare or vacation benefits.
>
>To make a long story short, after a number of years, Kodak decided
>that they no longer had need for this woman's services and either
>cancelled her contract or just didn't renew it. She sued Kodak and
>won, arguing that since she had been treated like an employee for so
>many years, to all intents and purposes she *was* an employee. After
>that, Kodak placed limitations on contractors (not invited to social
>gatherings, not invited to certain meetings, not allowed to be on
>contract for greater than 1 year in the same dept, etc) to avoid this
>type of thing ever happening again.

If I recall correctly, there was something of a landmark case
when one or more contractors tried to get in retroactively on
Microsoft's employee stock options - which had become very
valuable.

The fallout for me was that the legal department at the major
mutual fund I was working for at the time decided they had to
protect the company from similar actions.

To do that, they required all independent contractors (i.e.
people like me who submitted billing as "Cresswell Associates",
which was just a single-person S3 corporation) to sign on as
employees of one of several approved contractor brokers.

The bottom line was that that third party now skimmed 20-30
percent off the top of every contractor's hourly wage for doing
basically nothing except acting as a legal firewall and
generating a monthly bill (which took me all of 20 minutes each
time I did it myself).

To the extent that is going on nationwide, it seems to represent
a huge further transfer of wealth from one class to another.
--
Pete Cresswell

[cindys]

On May 9, 1:08 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:

snip

> They did that in the mid-90's.  After the IRS ruling, companies would
> not go beyond a year on a contract and the contractor had to be away for
> six months before he/she could have another contract with that company.
>   I hated that ruling.  It meant that after 18 months I had to leave a
> cushy contract.  I returned several years later for another contract and
> that is when I went to Japan six times in the one year.

----
Based on personal experience at Kodak, a contractor could not stay in
the same department for more than 1 year but could be on contract in a
different department. I know because in the early 1990s, I worked for
Kodak (on contract) for 2 or 3 years straight without a break but for
different departments.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

In the early '90s that was not a problem. By 1996 or so, it was.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 22:38:35 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:

>?????? ??? ?????, 8 ???? 2012 15:14:48 UTC+1, ??? shel...@thevillages.net:

I wouldn't read that much into it. The recent years have been
characterized by de-conglomeration in the business world. The mantra
now is "concentrate on your core business." Even when mergers occur,
the new company typically follows up by selling non-core assets. The
idea is that management shouldn't even have to think about
non-essential, commodity-type operations, so many companies large and
small are farming those functions (and the associated administrative
headaches) out.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 9 במאי 2012 13:25:41 UTC+1, מאת shel...@thevillages.net:

>
> Supply and demand. If there are not enough cleaners, then the contract
> cleaning company will offer perks such as vacation time, etc.
>

That's very much a first approximation. The first law of economic is that most people act in their own interests, most of the time. But people aren't machines trying to maximise their dollar income.

We're also social beings, and very conscious of social status. That's why, if you have a philosophy that cooking is demeaning, then it creates tensions when some members of staff are scholars and some are cooks. Universities solve this by having separate social arrangements for academic and ancillary staff. Naive economic theory would say that you charge the same amount for the same food, and let whoever eat where they want, but it doesn't work like that.

The 1950s yeshivah did value its servants, however. That's why one of them was an action figure. She wasn't just a person hired to do the cooking. Of course for observant Jews, cooking isn't just bunging food together. There are also rules which give the act of serving food religious significance.

[cindys]

----
I've never heard that there are rules and a Jewish religious
significance to the act of serving food. Can you elaborate?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Alex Fisher]

On 9/05/2012 0:14, Shelly wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 9:01 AM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>> בתאריך יום שלישי, 8 במאי 2012 02:55:32 UTC+1, מאת cindys:

>>> On May 7, 7:22 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day
>>>> long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the
>>>> question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be
>>>> willing to answer.

>>> -----
>>> I'm willing to answer it. Perhaps the family should hire a chef and
>>> then all the family members can study torah all day long.
>>> Best regards,
>>> ---Cindy S.
>>>
>> Exactly. Realistically the Rosh Yeshivah isn't going to do his own
>> cooking.
>
> Why not? Has he not two hands? Does he not have a brain? Is he incapable
> of turning on a stove?
>
> Those of us who have full time jobs *DO* take lunch breaks, coffee
> breaks, etc. We are not doing our jobs every minute of the day.
>
> IOW, there is time!!!!!
>
>> So someone's got to do it for him. If we decide that it's beneath the
>> dignity of a Jewish woman to cook,
>> the only solution is to get in the goyim.
>
> No, not all. You can &^)(*&(*^^ do it yourself!
>
>>
>> This is a modern trend. Companies don't enroll cleaning ladies or
>> cooks on the staff, because they like to think of
>> themselves as equal status, team-working, happy bands of workers. So
>> the cleaning ladies are brought in on outside contract,
>> so they're not one of the company.
>
> Your reasoning is so off-the-wall as to be completely laughable.
>
>> They don't get the pension, they're not invited to the annual bash,
>> the contractor tells them if they've got to clock in
>> or are trusted to do their own hours, and so on.

>
> Now you see why companies hire outside contractors:
> 1 - It is cheaper for them
> 2 - They can concentrate on what they do best in their own business
> 3 - It is cheaper for them
> 4 - The outside people are specialists in this and do a better job
> 5 - It is cheaper for them

You forgot one: We do a better job (I used to be a cleaner before I had
to stop working due to injury).
>
>>
>> There are huge dangers with this. But people can't see it.
>
> How old are you?
>


--
Alex

[Alex Fisher]

On 8/05/2012 22:50, Shelly wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 7:22 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> בתאריך יום שני, 7 במאי 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, מאת W. Baker:

>>>
>>> Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve? Is it fit
>>> that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
>>> serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>>>
>> The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only
>> raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's
>> almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain
>> a healthy life.
>>

>> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long.
>> So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question
>> that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to
>> answer.
>

> I will, I will, I will!!!!!!!
>
> "The most qualified", that's who. That means the brightest and the those
> so inclined will study Torah and the most culinarily talented and so
> inclined will do the cooking -- and some will do *both* -- and *most*
> will *not* study Torah all day long, or at all.
>
> Notice, Malcomb, that this answers your question 100% and does not
> reference a gender at all.
>
> On a side note, I completely do not believe that "recent study". Here is
> why:
> 1 - All previous studies have show that cooking *removes* nutrients and
> 2 - We have the same bodies as our distant ancestors and they survived
> quite well even before they started cooking their meals.

Actually, to get the most from food, we require a mix of cooked and raw
foods. As examples, consider that raw starch id very difficult to
digest. So starchy foods, such as grains and potatoes, must be cooked to
release the most nutrients.

OTOH, when you cook an egg, the protein becomes much less digestible the
more it is cooked. Raw egg, however, is not really all that nice, so we
cook it anyway. Soft boiled are more digestible than hard boiled, and
for centuries convalescent patients were served coddled eggs (left in
hot water just long enough to heat through. The whites were still runny,
but showing signs of coagulating).

So yes, the study is misleading, but so would any study purporting to
show the opposite be.

>
> On a second side note, if I were hiring someone I would want the most
> capable and qualified for the position and I would be 100% gender blind
> in my decision.
>
> On a third side note, I work full time and I do about 2/3 of the cooking
> in my home. It's no big deal, not with all these modern appliances. It's
> also not like we are preparing gourmet meals. (We belong to a gourmet
> club and once a month it is a big deal to do that kind of cooking).
>

--
Alex

[cindys]

On May 7, 10:32 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 9:52 AM, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > בתאריך יום שני, 7 במאי 2012 04:12:23 UTC+1, מאת Yisroel Markov:
>
> >> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
> >> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
> >> just sad:
> >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/
>
> > I don't think God treats function as synonymous with status. Some people study Torah to a high level and become experts, some people study a bit and know the basics, and some people don't study Torah but assist the scholars in their material needs.
> > They're all part of the same enterprise, and is shouldn't a source of shame or resentment if someone is not near the top. The yeshivah couldn't operate at all if no-one cleaned the toilets. Now you might say it would be a better yeshivah if the Rosh Yeshivah took his turn with the toilet duck, and there'd maybe be some truth in that. But almost no organisation works on that principle.
>
> Not the point at all, and I think you know that.  The point here is that
> the father's proper and ONLY job is to study torah and the mother's
> proper and ONLY job is to care for him and the children.
>
> Can you spell "pigeon-hole" and "subservient"?
-----
In general, SCJM seems to have an epidemic of posters who think the
year is 1955 and Mrs. Cleaver is still wearing high heels and a pearl
necklace and waiting for Ward to come home from the office.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On May 9, 5:26 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

snip

> A contract programmer on $175,000 a year is in a very different
social position to a contract cleaner on minimum wage.

-----
Again, what planet do you live on? Where I live, cleaners make far
more money than minimum wage. In fact, when I used to have a lady
clean my house, I was paying her more per hour than I was earning. She
was being paid more than double minimum wage and not paying income tax
on it either. Where I live, a cleaning lady typically gets paid
between 15 and 20 dollars/hour.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On May 8, 9:01 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

snip

> Exactly. Realistically the Rosh Yeshivah isn't going to do his own cooking.

Why not? He lives in a regular house, has a wife and kids, drives a
station wagon, mows his lawn, etc just like any other man. Why
wouldn't he do some of the cooking (just like any other man)?

>So someone's got to do it for him. If we decide that it's beneath the dignity of a Jewish woman to cook, the only solution is to get in the goyim.

Is that so? My son still talks about the great soups the executive
director (one step below the rosh yeshiva) of his yeshiva used to cook
for the students' lunch.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 9 במאי 2012 22:21:01 UTC+1, מאת Yisroel Markov:

>
> I wouldn't read that much into it. The recent years have been
> characterized by de-conglomeration in the business world. The mantra
> now is "concentrate on your core business."
>

Of course there is often more than one reason for a decision.

But contempt for menial labour is I think an important factor. That's an attitude the 1950s yeshivah was free of.

[Henry Goodman]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cb17c194-e2e3-4586...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

___________________________________________________________

I assume he is referring to kashrus, separation of meat and milk, saying
Berachot before and after.


--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net

[Shelly]

Read my #4 again.

>>
>>>
>>> There are huge dangers with this. But people can't see it.
>>
>> How old are you?
>>
>
>


--

Shelly

[Shelly]

Same here in Florida.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

Menial labor? Let me tell you about something that happened about 25
years ago. I was having dinner with my elder son at a restaurant.
While we were there I watched a busboy clean and prepare some other
tables. I was so impressed by his efficiency and his apparent
enthusiasm, that when I was leaving I praised him to the maitre'd. I
admire competence -- in any field.

Now a busboy's job is menial labor and, yes, I consider it to be beneath
me. Why? Because I am capable of so much more. However, I do clean my
own table at home -- and wash pots and put dishes in the dishwasher.

BTW, were you even *around* in the 1950's? I was. I entered college in
1958. Surprise, surprise. Menial labor has ALWAYS been looked down
upon as being for the common laborer and people wanted something better
for themselves and their children. That is why I, son of a cab driver,
went to college. It may have been all my father could do, but it was
not what they wanted for me.

--
Shelly

[cindys]

On May 10, 2:48 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום רביעי, 9 במאי 2012 22:21:01 UTC+1, מאת Yisroel Markov:
>
> > I wouldn't read that much into it. The recent years have been
> > characterized by de-conglomeration in the business world. The mantra
> > now is "concentrate on your core business."
>
> Of course there is often more than one reason for a decision.
>
> But contempt for menial labour is I think an important factor.

Because you say it is?

>That's an attitude the 1950s yeshivah was free of.

What do you know about attitudes in 1950s yeshivos? And what do you
know about attitudes in 2012 yeshivos? Is this your personal
experience? Have you researched this independently? or are you just
talking out of your hat again (as my father a"h would have said)?

You have labeled the hiring of cleaning companies and vegetarianism as
being "dangerous" (sic) trends and believe at face value faith-based
religious claims amongst other things. Personally, I think it's
dangerous when a person whose scientific work has the potential to
impact on countless people's lives lacks the ability to think
critically, cannot follow a line of logic without meandering off the
subject, and attempts to pass himself off as an authority about
subjects he doesn't know and couldn't possibly know the first thing
about. As a scientist, don't you find that dangerous?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[(PeteCresswell)]

>Where I live, a cleaning lady typically gets paid
>> between 15 and 20 dollars/hour.
>> Best regards,
>> ---Cindy S.
>
>Same here in Florida.

Do the ladies work direct and actually get $15-20? Sounds like
it if they don't pay taxes..... Or does the company they work
for get the $15-20?

When we were caring for an immediate family member with
Alzheimer's, we were paying $120+ per day per shift for
caretakers; but it seemed to me like the agency they worked for
was taking most of it.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Shelly]

The cleaning services charge a lot more than $20/hr. My son was paying
a service more than double that.

--
Shelly

[cindys]

-----
A cleaning service in my area charges around $100 per hour. Generally,
they send several cleaners at once who work simultaneously, and an
average house is supposedly clean in 1 hour.

This is a generalization, as there are clearly variables at work. If
you want the cleaners to take down the blinds and wash them in the
bathtub, for example, that is obviously going to be more time
consuming than just dusting them etc.

When I worked for a contract agency, I found out the the customer was
paying the agency 50% more than I was being paid.

Years ago, when I worked for Berlitz teaching English, OTOH, I was
being paid $8 for a 40-minute lesson. (Usually we did two lessons back
to back). This was negotiable by the way, depending on how desperate
Berlitz was to find a teacher on a moment's notice. Sometimes, the
manager offered me double. Either way, Berlitz was making a humongous
profit, as local corporations were paying Berlitz for their services
for employees who came from other countries to do longterm training
(anywhere from 6 weeks to a year). For the very longterm training,
business executives would come with their families, and the
corporation would provide them housing, a car, etc and English lessons
for the whole family. The corporations were literally paying Berlitz
thousands and thousands of dollars, and I was being paid $12/hour to
teach for them. Then, I got smart and negotiated a couple of my own
contracts for a lot less than Berlitz was charging. Berlitz wasn't too
happy, needless to say.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[mm]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 02:36:02 +0000 (UTC), Alex Fisher
<peter....@uqconnect.edu.au> wrote:

>
>
>OTOH, when you cook an egg, the protein becomes much less digestible the
>more it is cooked. Raw egg, however, is not really all that nice, so we
>cook it anyway. Soft boiled are more digestible than hard boiled, and
>for centuries convalescent patients were served coddled eggs (left in
>hot water just long enough to heat through. The whites were still runny,
>but showing signs of coagulating).

Have you noticed that there are two parts to the whilte of an egg?
They are hard to see but they fry differently. What is the
difference? Do they have different names in English or Hebrew?

--

Meir

[mm]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 03:13:55 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On May 8, 9:01 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>snip
>> Exactly. Realistically the Rosh Yeshivah isn't going to do his own cooking.
>
>Why not? He lives in a regular house, has a wife and kids, drives a
>station wagon, mows his lawn, etc just like any other man. Why
>wouldn't he do some of the cooking (just like any other man)?
>
>>So someone's got to do it for him. If we decide that it's beneath the dignity of a Jewish woman to cook, the only solution is to get in the goyim.

Who has ever suggested it's beneath the dignity of a Jewish woman to
cook? Or of any Jew or any person? Arguments based on an
if-clause have inherent weakness.

>
>Is that so? My son still talks about the great soups the executive
>director (one step below the rosh yeshiva) of his yeshiva used to cook
>for the students' lunch.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>

--

Meir

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום חמישי, 10 במאי 2012 14:09:00 UTC+1, מאת cindys:

>
> What do you know about attitudes in 1950s yeshivos?
>

Faigy is an action figure. That tells you that she was valued. Can you imagine Goldman Sachs producing action figures of head office cleaners?

[cindys]

----
This is the source of your knowledge about 1950s yeshivos? This sort
of reminds me of your claim that the torah must be true because it was
written on parchment. Do you judge the truth of biochemical precepts
on the basis of how much money was spent on the binding of the
textbook?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Alex Fisher]

In Australia, $50 per hour minimum to the actual company. They pay the
workers that $15.

--
Alex

[Alex Fisher]

Between $12 and $15 an hour, depending if you're working between 5 PM
and 6 AM (there's an allowance that brings it up to the higher amount).
In Australia, that *is* the minimum (adult) wage. (FTR, I was a contract
cleaner).

--
Alex

[cindys]

On May 11, 2:10 pm, Alex Fisher <peter.fish...@uqconnect.edu.au>
wrote:

----
In the USA, minimum wage is $7.25/hour. It's the same for children or
adults. So, that's why I was saying that a cleaning person earns twice
the minimum wage.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[mm]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:10:51 +0000 (UTC), Alex Fisher
<peter....@uqconnect.edu.au> wrote:

>On 10/05/2012 12:39, cindys wrote:

>> On May 9, 5:26?am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> > A contract programmer on $175,000 a year is in a very different
>> social position to a contract cleaner on minimum wage.
>> -----
>> Again, what planet do you live on? Where I live, cleaners make far
>> more money than minimum wage. In fact, when I used to have a lady
>> clean my house, I was paying her more per hour than I was earning. She
>> was being paid more than double minimum wage and not paying income tax
>> on it either. Where I live, a cleaning lady typically gets paid
>> between 15 and 20 dollars/hour.
>> Best regards,
>> ---Cindy S.
>Between $12 and $15 an hour, depending if you're working between 5 PM
>and 6 AM (there's an allowance that brings it up to the higher amount).
>In Australia, that *is* the minimum (adult) wage.

Very interesting. That's about twice what it is in the US. (and the
Aus$ = 0.98 to 1.01 of a US dollar, pretty much the same In the US,
every time they(a) want to raise the minimum wage, they(b) say it will
increase unemployment because some people won't be worth the extra
money. And of course that makes sense, but maybe not as much as it
seems. I'd like to see some detailed comparisons done between the US
and Australia on the minimum wage and its effects. .

> (FTR, I was a contract
>cleaner).

--

Meir

[Harry Weiss]

Care givers gat paid very little and are usually employees of the agency
not contractors.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com

[Alex Fisher]

Based on the Australian experience, it really doesn't seem to make all
that big a difference. Our unemployment rate has remained relatively
constant over the last few years, hovering around the 5.5% mark. The
minimum wage increases annually, usually by only one or two percentage
points. Unions generally push for such things as a 4% increase, spread
over several years. The actual increase is generally less than the
inflation rate.

> seems. I'd like to see some detailed comparisons done between the US
> and Australia on the minimum wage and its effects. .
>
>> (FTR, I was a contract
>> cleaner).
>

Well, figures released just 2 days ago showed the unemployment rate at
4.8%, 0.3% better than expected. There is a hearing scheduled in the
next few months to look at the minimum wage, and decide whether it
should be increased. Most likely we'll see an increase of a few percent
per annum for the next 3 or 4 years. Projections are for the
unemployment figures to remain pretty much static.

Interestingly, the rag trade (or clothing industry if you prefer)
historically had one of the lowest pay rates. When I worked there (I was
a cutter), most clothing companies were owned by Jews. These days, that
seem to be no longer the case, But (unless things have changed
drastically in the last few years) one of the (to me) fringe benefits
still exists. Everyone works an extra hour in the morning Monday to
Thursday, and gets a half-day on Friday. It was originally done that way
because many of the machinists were also Jews (most of them women), so
things were done to enable them to get home and prepare for Shabbat.

--
Alex

[mm]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:26:14 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>?????? ??? ?????, 9 ???? 2012 05:33:19 UTC+1, ??? shel...@thevillages.net:
>>
>> When I was an employee, until about 1990, my top salary was about
>> $60,000. For the next 10 years I was an independent contractor
>> (programming) through the contract agencies for periods of 6 to 18
>> months. My last one earned me about $175,000/year. If that is
>> "exploitation", then PLEASE exploit me.
>>
>A few years ago a friend of mine left university, and had difficulty getting a job. But eventually he found something selling life insurance. He was pepped up, saying "I am now self-employed". I was older and I knew better, and of course the job only lasted a few weeks.
>
>However lawyers, surgeons, bond traders and people like that are also often legally self-employed, even though the public perceives them as working for the law firm, hospital, or bank.

Again, in the US some in all these groups are employees.

>The point is that you can't look at someone's technical status and determine the real motive for that status.

That is "the point"? I thought the point you were making is that
contracting out office cleaning was demeaning to the office cleaner.

> A contract programmer on $175,000 a year is in a very different social position to a contract cleaner on minimum wage.

Financial, yes. Social depends on one's attitude.

--

Meir

[Susan S]

In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from mm
<mm2...@bigfoot.com>:

Egg whites are made up of the thin and thick white; when the egg is
growing, the white is constructed in alternate layers of different
consistency. However, the contents are the same: mostly water and
protein. There is something in the egg called the chalaza; it is white,
but it anchors the yolk to the shell and is not part of the egg white.

Susan Silberstein

[Alex Fisher]

Interesting. If you are under 18 years of age, the standard minimum wage
is around $9 an hour, over 18 it's around $14 per hour.

Seems we get paid at a higher rate, but then, some costs of living are
higher (if you can find a house on a tiny block for less than $100k,
you're doing well. Rents are at least $200 per *week* ).

> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.


--

Alex

[Harry Weiss]

Alex Fisher <peter....@uqconnect.edu.au> wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 4:35, cindys wrote:

> > On May 11, 2:10?pm, Alex Fisher<peter.fish...@uqconnect.edu.au>

> > wrote:
> >> On 10/05/2012 12:39, cindys wrote:> On May 9, 5:26 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> snip

> >>> ?> ?A contract programmer on $175,000 a year is in a very different

Those prices seem much less than California


> --
> Alex

[cindys]

On May 13, 4:06 am, Alex Fisher <peter.fish...@uqconnect.edu.au>
wrote:

snip

> Interesting. If you are under 18 years of age, the standard minimum wage
> is around $9 an hour, over 18 it's around $14 per hour.
>
> Seems we get paid at a higher rate, but then, some costs of living are
> higher (if you can find a house on a tiny block for less than $100k,
> you're doing well. Rents are at least $200 per *week* ).

-----
From what you've written, your cost of living (cost of housing anyway)
in Australia is much lower. I live in a city that is constantly on the
"Top ten most affordable cities in America" list, and the only house I
could find in my city for less than 100K would be teeny, in a working
class part of the city (on the edge of a very rough neighborhood).
Nothing in a suburb. And I could rent a one-bedroom apartment for $800/
month (nothing fancy). That said, a single person could live fairly
comfortably on ($15/hour) $31,200 per year. Last year, the median
American income was $26,364 (according to the Huffington Post). Of
course, whether or not this would be comfortable would depend on the
size of one's family. If a husband and wife without children each
earned this amount, we're talking about a family income of over
$52,000/year, and they could live a comfortable albeit certainly not
extravagant life, but if there were children in the picture, that's
not a lot of money at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/us-incomes-falling-as-optimism-reaches-10-year-low_n_1022118.html

Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/us-incomes-falling-as-optimi...
-----
Of course, one of the main things that we are not taking into
consideration here are the cost of benefits. Health insurance costs in
the USA are very high, so there is a huge difference between a person
who has a $15/hour job WITH benefits (especially health insurance)
versus the person who has a $15/hour job and must somehow pay his own
health insurance.

For a single person, individual health insurance policies can cost
over $400/month. For a family, you could be looking at $1000/month.
The result is that many working class Americans don't have any health
insurance. The welfare system pays for the health insurance for the
impoverished (Medicaid) and the upper middle class generally have jobs
which include the health insurance as a benefit, but the people in the
middle are the ones falling through the cracks (can't afford the
health insurance yet have "too much money" to qualify for the free
insurance), and these are the ones that either don't go to the doctor
or end up in hospital emergency rooms (because the emergency room by
law must treat them). Hence the reason universal health insurance is
such a huge issue in the USA. I would assume that in Australia,
everybody has national health insurance.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Gary]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:11:46 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On May 13, 4:06 am, Alex Fisher <peter.fish...@uqconnect.edu.au>
>wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> Interesting. If you are under 18 years of age, the standard minimum wage
>> is around $9 an hour, over 18 it's around $14 per hour.
>>
>> Seems we get paid at a higher rate, but then, some costs of living are
>> higher (if you can find a house on a tiny block for less than $100k,
>> you're doing well. Rents are at least $200 per *week* ).
>-----
>From what you've written, your cost of living (cost of housing anyway)
>in Australia is much lower. I live in a city that is constantly on the
>"Top ten most affordable cities in America" list, and the only house I
>could find in my city for less than 100K would be teeny, in a working
>class part of the city (on the edge of a very rough neighborhood).

You'd be lucky to be able to buy a studio apartment in London for that
kind of money.

[Alex Fisher]

All depends on where you rent. Queensland is generally cheaper than
other states, but you can pay $700 per week in some areas, even higher
at the Gold Coast (which is probably Queensland's answer to Malibu and
surrounds). Students pay around $$400 for a 2 bed home unit (I guess
that's probably similar to a condo, but not as flashy. When I was a kid
we called the same thing a flat).

If you want to buy a house, you'll get no change from $200,000 in outer
Brisbane, $500k in Brisbane itself, and look at millions for a unit at
the Gold Coast. Even a block of sand near the beach sells for around $2
million.

I know meat is definitely more expensive, chicken is around $2.50 to
$3.50 a pound, and that's for treif. Kosher is twice that. Beef ranges
from $3 to $15 a pound (these are approximations, as Australia is
metric, and I'm converting price per kilogram).

Petrol (gasoline) ranges around $6 a gallon for standard and up to
nearly $7 a gallon for premium.

Smokers will pay a minimum of $10 for a cheap pack of 20. Beer runs
between $1.50 a can for local stuff, up to $3 a can for decent imported
beer. Whiskey around $25 a bottle for cheap blended Scotch, much the
same for bourbon. A reasonable single malt Scotch will be around $60 a
bottle.

Wine is not too bad, from around $9 up to $25 for local wines
(non-kosher of course) - finding kosher wines here is not easy, unless
you live in Sydney or Melbourne. They even have to get Kosher meat from
interstate as there is none in Queensland. The local Chabad organise that.)

We've grown used to it I guess.


>
>
>> --
>> Alex
>


--
Alex

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 13 במאי 2012 07:22:42 UTC+1, מאת googy:

> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:26:14 +0000 (UTC),
> malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>
> >The point is that you can't look at someone's technical status and determine the real motive for that status.
>
> That is "the point"? I thought the point you were making is that
> contracting out office cleaning was demeaning to the office cleaner.
>

By contracting out the cleaner, you are saying "I reject you as my employee". By contracting out the top surgeon, investment banking consultant, famous journalist or similar, you're saying "it is inappropriate for you to be my employee because of your essentially independent status".

So the legal mechanism might be the same, but the underlying reality is almost the opposite.

[cindys]

On May 13, 10:30 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום ראשון, 13 במאי 2012 07:22:42 UTC+1, מאת googy:> On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:26:14 +0000 (UTC),

> > malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > >The point is that you can't look at someone's technical status and determine the real motive for that status.
>
> > That is "the point"?  I thought the point you were making is that
> > contracting out office cleaning was demeaning to the office cleaner.
>
> By contracting out the cleaner, you are saying "I reject you as my employee".

Which of course has no basis in fact other than you're blowing smoke
out your hat. Maybe you see it that way, but nobody else does. It's
really easy to invent ideas and then try to pass them off as fact on
SCJM. There is another poster here who does that all the time. Is this
how you operate in the research lab? Most corporations hire cleaning
companies, not individuals, to clean their offices. The cleaning
people are employees of the cleaning company.

>By contracting out the top surgeon, investment banking consultant, famous journalist or similar, you're saying "it is inappropriate for you to be my employee because of your essentially independent status".

I don't know of any agencies that contract out surgeons or banking
consultants. Never heard of such a thing.

>
> So the legal mechanism might be the same, but the underlying reality is almost the opposite.

The legal mechanism is not the same, and what you are trying to pass
off as "reality" is just something you've made up off the top of your
head.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On May 13, 10:57 am, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 10:30 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>

snip

>
> >By contracting out the top surgeon, investment banking consultant, famous journalist or similar, you're saying "it is inappropriate for you to be my employee because of your essentially independent status".
>
> I don't know of any agencies that contract out surgeons or banking
> consultants. Never heard of such a thing.
>
>
>
> > So the legal mechanism might be the same, but the underlying reality is almost the opposite.
>
> The legal mechanism is not the same, and what you are trying to pass
> off as "reality" is just something you've made up off the top of your
> head.

----
And for the record, surgeons are not "contracted out," but are self
employed and must apply for privileges to operate in any given
hospital. An investment banking consultant is generally employed by
the bank, although he or she works on a commission basis. A journalist
is either free-lance (gets paid by selling individual articles to a
newspaper or magazine) or is on staff as an employee. At any rate, not
one of these people is a contractor for an agency. And cleaning people
can be employees of the organization where they work (as they
frequently are in large organizations) or they are employees of the
cleaning company or they can be self-employed.

I'm not sure what planet you're living on that you seem to think some
people are self-employed because they are not good enough to be
employees of a company. I had a job where the option was mine, and I
chose to remain self-employed and not become an employee of the
company. It was much more lucrative for me to remain self employed.

There are many reasons and variables that play a role in whether a
company hires cleaning people as employees versus using a service
versus using the services of someone who is self employed, and many
people find that being self-employed is more lucrative.

To proclaim that self-employed cleaning people are self-employed only
because they are regarded as menial and therefore not worthy of being
employed by a company is not only untrue but insulting and demeaning
on your part. Cleaning people generally earn more money being self
employed rather than as employees of a company. If I were a cleaning
person, I would opt for self-employment any day of the week.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On May 13, 1:54 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
snip

>
> There are many reasons and variables that play a role in whether a
> company hires cleaning people as employees versus using a service

> versus using the services of someone who is self employed...
snip
---
And the most important variable is COST. A corporation chooses the
option that will give them the biggest bang for the buck. It is not
about perceptions and emotions. It is beyond me how somebody who is
employed to be objective can assert that business decisions are
governed by emotion.That's not how businesses work.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Gary]

It is beyond me how anyone can interpret what has been said so far as
businesses being governed by emotion.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 7, 10:32 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 9:52 AM, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > בתאריך יום שני, 7 במאי 2012 04:12:23 UTC+1, מאת Yisroel Markov:
>
> >> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
> >> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
> >> just sad:
> >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/
>
> > I don't think God treats function as synonymous with status. Some people study Torah to a high level and become experts, some people study a bit and know the basics, and some people don't study Torah but assist the scholars in their material needs.
> > They're all part of the same enterprise, and is shouldn't a source of shame or resentment if someone is not near the top. The yeshivah couldn't operate at all if no-one cleaned the toilets. Now you might say it would be a better yeshivah if the Rosh Yeshivah took his turn with the toilet duck, and there'd maybe be some truth in that. But almost no organisation works on that principle.
>
> Not the point at all, and I think you know that.  The point here is that
> the father's proper and ONLY job is to study torah and the mother's
> proper and ONLY job is to care for him and the children.
>
> Can you spell "pigeon-hole" and "subservient"?
>
> --
> Shelly

Agree!
Why not have dolls which allow more of the child's imagination, and
which suggest that both males and females can benefit from learning
Torah?
I am reminded of an old feminist saying, but true for today,
something like "God created Eve not from Adam's foot to be stepped
on by him, and not from Adam's head to be above him, but from Adam's
rib, to be his equal and close to his heart."

[topazgalaxy]

On May 7, 7:22 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום שני, 7 במאי 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, מאת W. Baker:
>
> > Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve?  Is it fit
> > that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
> > serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>
> The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain a healthy life.
>
> Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.

Why not have whoever is the best qualified do the cooking? Or you
can have all adults in the household learn to cook, since cooking is
a very valuable skill that all of us can use.
G-d forbid the main 'cook of the house' is sick and disabled, or put
in the hospital, it benefits the family for each mature person
in the household to know how to cook.
Same thing is true for bill paying, housework, sewing, financial
issues etc.
Some of the greatest cooks in the world are male chefs. I would not
want to tell Bobbie Flay that he can't cook just because he is male.

Can't a person study Torah and cook? With a video DVD or an audio
format a person can do both at the same time.

[Alex Fisher]

I wrote an essay based on that when I was trying for a mature-age entry
to a theology degree.

--
Alex

[Shelly]

Your mindset is one of "Heads I win; tails you lose".

In reality both are "It is cheaper for me (the business) to hire you as
an independent contractor (contracting service)".

--
Shelly

[topazgalaxy]

On May 13, 11:12 pm, Alex Fisher <peter.fish...@uqconnect.edu.au>
wrote:

I admire you for going for a higher education degree at a more
mature age.
What degree are you going for again? ?Masters? PhD and in what field?

I have also read more feminist discussions of the old "Eve and the
apple" bit. Perhaps you are acquainted with that line of thinking,
that maybe, just maybe, it was G-d's will that Eve disobey G-d, have
Adam taste the apple from the Tree of Knowledge, and lead the first
couple out of the Garden of Eden into a world of Knowledge and self
actualization.


I have found it interesting for many years that the tree from which
that sinful apple was taken was called the Tree of Knowledge, not the
"Tree of Sin" or the "Tree of Disobedience" or something like that.

[Fattush]

On May 6, 11:12 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> Toys reflect people's cultural milieu (actual or desired). This is one
> of the products sold by Mitzvah Kinder (available on Amazon, seehttp://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Mitzvah%20Kinder)
>
> It's called "The Seforim Room" -http://www.amazon.com/Mitzvah-Kinder-Seforim-Room-Jewish/dp/B006OQIARY/

>
> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
> just sad:http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/

> --
> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA       Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world         DNRC
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

IMO before we make a decision, we should see the entire set. This
playset has only three figures? But this company makes other
playsets. Do all the playsets have the same message? Or are there
playsets where girls/women do something other than act as waitresses
and housekeepers?

[mm]

This is the internet. Stop being reasonable.
--

Meir

[Fattush]

On May 7, 9:55 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 7:22 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:> בתאריך יום שני, 7 במאי 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, מאת W. Baker:
>
> > > Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve?  Is it fit
> > > that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
> > > serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>
> > The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain a healthy life.
>
> > Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.
>

> -----
> I'm willing to answer it. Perhaps the family should hire a chef and
> then all the family members can study torah all day long.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.

Applause.

Or maybe people can take turns and share. On one day, the men cook,
clean, etc. and support the women who study Torah. On another day,
the women do the chores to support the men who study Torah.

[Gary]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 22:35:34 +0000 (UTC), Fattush
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 7, 9:55 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>> On May 7, 7:22 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:> ?????? ??? ???, 7 ???? 2012 21:02:37 UTC+1, ??? W. Baker:
>>
>> > > Ah, but and the girl learn and someone male ofr femail Serve?  Is it fit
>> > > that only the boys study Torah, learning from their elders and only grls
>> > > serve, learningit from their Mothers.
>>
>> > The food needs cooking. A recent study was done on people who eat only raw food (for ideological and health reasons) and concluded that it's almost impossible to gain enough nutrients from a raw diet to maintain a healthy life.
>>
>> > Someone's got to cook it, so that others can study Torah all day long. So how should we decide who thsoe people will be? That's the question that the angry and annoyed, or just "sad" don't seem to be willing to answer.
>>
>> -----
>> I'm willing to answer it. Perhaps the family should hire a chef and
>> then all the family members can study torah all day long.
>> Best regards,
>> ---Cindy S.
>
>Applause.
>
>Or maybe people can take turns and share. On one day, the men cook,
>clean, etc. and support the women who study Torah. On another day,
>the women do the chores to support the men who study Torah.

Why would women even WANT to study torah?

[Fattush]

On May 6, 11:12 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> Toys reflect people's cultural milieu (actual or desired). This is one
> of the products sold by Mitzvah Kinder (available on Amazon, seehttp://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Mitzvah%20Kinder)
>
> It's called "The Seforim Room" -http://www.amazon.com/Mitzvah-Kinder-Seforim-Room-Jewish/dp/B006OQIARY/
>
> It's a simple play set for kids, but it's this little detail on the
> back that has attracted some attention and is annoying people. Me, I'm
> just sad:http://www.flickr.com/photos/76703868@N08/6993985408/
> --
> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA       Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world         DNRC
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

Why is everyone so excited over this? Here is a link to the Mitzvah
Kinder Shul Playset. On the right there is an image of a woman
reading. On the left a man is holding the Torah.

http://www.amazon.com/Mitzvah-Kinder-30798-Shul-Playset/dp/B003IPPOP0/ref=pd_sim_sbs_t_3

If you scroll down the page, on the right side you can see that the
Seforim Room set is merely an extension set.

To me, this is almost like Barbie dolls. If one looks enough, there
are Barbie dolls doing many different things . . . . dancing, skating,
surfing, etc.