Is that actually true though? Because I remember distinctly as a teen somewhere in the 00s where pockets stopped being an option. I could not and still cannot buy them in regular stores. I have to go to speciality stores or order online to get pockets. A lot of women have become resigned, but I rarely know a woman who isn't very excited about pockets for every day wear.
I also don't know a single woman who enjoyed the hunt starting in their teens for a pair of jeans that actually fit. I exclusively shop online because at least I can reference a size chart using actually real measurements. They're still lying to me but at least I have a solid chance of the clothing actually fitting.
While I don't doubt that there are women who disliked seeing the number go up on their waist size, I'm still not sure that if there was an easy sizing metric we could use, that it wouldn't get used. The example in the article was basically about a great many measurements and I could see how that would get skipped. Most people don't have tailors tape lying around, but I wonder if that international number was on everything if we'd see women like it more.
I noticed this and I wad enraged but it. The URL to the old page is way less easy to remember and I had to add it to my bookmarks. I'm still peeved about it.
Where? It's $4 for a dozen eggs where I am and I think that's pretty cheap. It's $5 for a bag of shitty apples. And then another $5 for a bag of oranges, so my kid can have fruit for the week. I cook from nothing but fresh and my kid gets one bag of chips or cookies a week. I buy 2lbs of meat for us both. I still spend over 100 dollars.
I guess we could have beans and rice every day, but I don't think it's a lot to give my kid a varied diet based on what's in season. Out of season is awful and that's how I ended up spending $15 on berries my kid wanted.
When people talk about these cheap meals, I wonder if they just expect everyone to eat the same thing every day at the lowest quality. I can go to a budget grocery store and get $3 eggs. That's true, but I feel like the local national chain should ve a good enough yard stick.
I do most of my grocery shopping at Target. In my large Midwestern city 12 large eggs are $2. A 3 lb bag of apples is $4. A 3 lb bag of oranges is $4.29.
>When people talk about these cheap meals, I wonder if they just expect everyone to eat the same thing every day at the lowest quality.
Eating cheap doesn't have to mean eating the same shit meal every day. I like to have a framework to work from where I have some structure but can vary it a lot based on what I want to eat. Rice+vegetable(s)+protein has endless variations. One week I might do a taco style rice bowl. The next maybe I do an Asian bowl. Stews are also great for this. By varying the ingredients a bit and using different spices I can get stews with very different flavor profiles that taste great.
I bought 12 eggs from trader joe's yesterday for $2, organics were $5
I get 18 eggs from another grocery store for about $5 and kroger has them really cheap too. Even Whole Foods has 18 for $5-ish in one brand and much more $$ in another.
Publix is the egg-gouger around me (and just overpriced in general)
IMHO the same cheap whole food meals are healthier than a variety of $2 frozen dinners.
You can hit a middle-ground with some frozen stuff to save a little time and money a few days per week too.
You are assuming access to a grocery store. Disproportionately poor people live in food deserts and have to rely on dollar stores and other things where fruit and vegetables are expensive.
Also, if you are busy single person, basically anything not shelf stable is expensive because you have to buy it in high quantities and it will go to waste if you are not skilled at storage. I, a mature adult, know how to store things, but as a younger person things went to rot a lot from inexperience.
Then there is prep. I spent literally all day on sunday just preparing food for the week. It's about 10-12 hours. That's what 2 hours a day to cook during the week. I have lied to myself and said, "oh, I'll cook something" and then eaten out all day from being busy or being exhausted. To save money stuff I could jam into the microwave was cheaper.
This is how you get there. I cook from fresh vegetables all the time now, but I have the time and energy for it. That just wasn't true at all when I was younger.
> an estimated 13.5 million people in the United States have low access to a supermarket or large grocery store [0]
That's 4% of the population. Food deserts explain some of it but not the majority
The rest yeah I absolutely agree with. People are stressed and time deficient, don't have food storage and prep skills
Maybe in a roundabout way it just comes back to money? If you need to work or study too much and don't feel you have the time to cook, you'll get the easiest options you know
Part of it can be overcome with strategy. I spend 15 minutes a day on food prep and couldnt imagine how I'd make my diet healthier. I'm sure what you make is much more elaborate though haha
I feel like they should try the potato diet. I recommend it, not because I believe it is effective (it wasn't for me), but because it is very good at removing the pleasure from eating. When you are eating to survive, you will come to understand how what being sated is. From there, I found I could lose weight because I had broken the habit of eating for any other reason than to fuel myself. Although, admittedly, I enjoyed losing weight this way better than the potato diet.
With some people, I think they have just lost what being sated feels like.
People give this excuse but somehow I feel like they would be less charitable if it was any othet addictive thing. "Oh, Timmy had a drinking problem at 13? Well we can't blame the parents. They don't have the mental or emotional strength to keep their kid out of the liquor cabinet. How ever could they know about locks?" That's what this feels like to me. As someone who is watching this happen in real time with my kid's peers, a lot parents just don't want to be bothered. And that's their right, but setting up the parental controls baked into all these devices is dead simple. They could, but they don't want to deal with whining or the exception moments. That's their right as a parent, but I don't subscribe to the "poor exhausted parents" theory when they had enough energy to buy these devices and set them up for the kid to use in the first place. It's a couple more minutes to enable the parent controls.
Just ban it. My kid is in that age group and roblox is banned. Her feelings on the matter are irrelevant. I don't know why people hand wring about "oh they'll be left out". Oh well? I'm a millennial. I remember being just a poor kid at a school with kkds much wealthier than me. There were a lot of things my friends had that I didn't. Like a cellphone. I wasn't in the group chats and somehow I still survived.
My kid is disappointed, but it's fine. She has friends play the games she does have and she has a lot of other games. She had a lot of other ways to socialize with them. I honestly don't see roblox as different than any other social fad. Roblox is just the default digital hangout spot for kids, but it doesn't have to be for your kid's friend circle.
My guess is your kid is a little older than mine. Do you find she has actually adhered to the ban? Or do you think she plays it with her friends when you’re not around (such as at their homes)?
Except that's not true. Plenty of parents let their kids have unlimited access to junk food and candy. Neighbor kids come over and they don't know what to do because I only have water, fruit, and pretzels. I have been to so many parent's houses who have whole pantries of just sugary snacks.
Fresh water is a finite resource. It replenishes extremely slowly in certain forms. Like ground water. Lakes and rivers can run dry if you pull too much from them, see: Iran. AI data centers are making the problem of overuse worse. We were already pulling too much water in areas. With these data centers, some places that didn't have a problem are starting to.
Women are definitely told the same thing. That's the whole fight about roe v wade in the US. The difference is that if a man wants the kid and the woman doesn’t, the woman is the one who is putting her health and life on the line, not the man. That's why it's her choice. Or at least it used to be in the US. In many places it's not and women die as a result. Childbirth is somehow still the top 10 killer of women. It's only birth control that dropped it from #1. Men don't die. They're not even the most financially impacted. They also get to walk away like women never get to do. A woman who is forced to carry a child rarely gets to walk out the door and forget about her family. That's why women grt to choose. Until men carry the same burden in child care and child creation, it's the kind of of unfairness that's inherent to the situation.
I understand why men feel this way, but realistically when a woman is stuck with a child she didn't want, which happens more often than people admit because of so many factors and systems set against the idea of abortion, she never gets to walk away.
I also don't know a single woman who enjoyed the hunt starting in their teens for a pair of jeans that actually fit. I exclusively shop online because at least I can reference a size chart using actually real measurements. They're still lying to me but at least I have a solid chance of the clothing actually fitting.
While I don't doubt that there are women who disliked seeing the number go up on their waist size, I'm still not sure that if there was an easy sizing metric we could use, that it wouldn't get used. The example in the article was basically about a great many measurements and I could see how that would get skipped. Most people don't have tailors tape lying around, but I wonder if that international number was on everything if we'd see women like it more.
reply