At left: Falls Park hydrangeas! Purty!
Big news today: In case you didn't know, the skinnier a woman is, the more money she makes. By contrast, overweight men have higher salaries than thinner men.
Go on, you say, they actually required some sociological study to
prove that?
Apparently so:
A new study reveals that thinner women -- and larger men -- tend to make the most money.
"Early Show" Contributing Correspondent Taryn Winter Brill reported new research from the University of Florida (pdf) finds that, for women, corporate America is just like a catwalk -- the smaller your waist -- the bigger your paycheck. But if you're a man looking to snag that corner office, don't worry about skipping dessert. Thinner men actually make less money.
According to the study, women who weighed 25 pounds less than the group norm earned about $16,000 more per year. A woman 25 pounds above the group norm earned about $14,000 less. Thinner men, on the other hand, made almost $9,000 less than their average male co-worker.
One of those things I didn't need a study to tell me. But the right-wingers and anti-feminists demand copious
data for every single political assertion, therefore DEAD AIR will carefully tuck this one away for the next unpleasant occasion one of them attempts to argue that women have it
made in the shade, sitting at home and madly munching on bon-bons.
Speaking of which...
Ballgame, annoying moderator at the contentious anti-feminist blog FEMINIST CRITICS, self-righteously howls in indignation when he believes he is banned by a pro-feminist men's blog. Positively bug-eyed over his ill treatment, he writes:
Still reluctant to believe that a critical-but-respectful comment had been purged, or that I had been banned on the basis of that comment, I scoured the site’s comment policy and discovered two things. One, TGMP [The Good Men Project] bars “comparisons to genocidal dictators and their brutal regimes.” Two, the site apparently has a ‘one strike and you’re out’ policy.
That's pretty funny, since Ballgame banned
me for "critical-but-respectful comments"--but I guess that's somehow different.
The difference is: one standard for men, another for women.
Ballgame banned me simply for disagreeing (loudly) with him and refusing to pinky-swear that I was arguing in "good faith"--when no such promise is extracted from the dozens of offensive Men's Rights Androids that frequent his blog. In fact, these reactionaries can attack feminists with gusto and it's all regarded as hunky-dory by Ballgame. Feminists, however, can
not attack back in the same disrepectful tone.
So now Ballgame's karma catches up with him. (
giggle)
Oh wait... not to worry, after howling and (most especially)
reminding the guys at TGMP that he is an important blogger, they have unbanned him. But
of course! Boys will be boys, bros before hos. Etc.
And BTW, exactly WHAT is Ballgame disagreeing with at TGMP? His blog post title says it all:
Questioning Sexual slavery. He demands
DATA, because simply passing all those female junkies in the red light district and watching
Frontline isn't enough for him. (
Amnesty International, Shamnesty International!) He is skeptical. Skeptical of what? Women's words, of course.
Might this be an example of "bad faith"? Running a blog called "Feminist Critics" that you pointedly ban feminists from and then writing posts demanding readable DATA before you concede that sexual slavery exists? Uh-huh.
Bad faith = anti-feminism, in its entirety.
Featuring the Swamp Rabbit Trail, Reedy River Falls, Liberty Bridge, South Carolina Farmers Market, and all the usual suspects. 
At left: Falls Park hydrangeas! Purty! 
When the blue meanies in Blogdonia get nasty with me, they make fun of my official Blogdonia name. :(
