Somebody tell me to get my butt moving and get ready for work a few minutes early so I can defrost the car.

She got moving.

Now my turn.

12˚F

Yesterday's snow is now an inch of pretty white ice.

Ice flow, no where to go, Lost in the blinding whiteness of the TUNDRAAAAAAAAAAAAA

We have snow here too. I'm trying not to let panicking thoughts about being unable to get around easily for the next several months to overwhelm my brain.

Just a dusting here to make things look clean and fresh. Feels like 20 ish F.

Yea for remote car starters that start a few cars in the Mall parking lot!!!

What's the problem with it?

Lack of historical context. Let's start from here: up to ~1950 (your data may vary. Mine does), more than 50% of the world's population lived on the fine line between malnutrition and starving. When you throw industrialization into this equation, along with various hedging-capitalist hedging tactics taken by the (then-now more than ever centralized) state, that still doesn't say that meat should go to the men. In fact, when in a certain point industrialization causes the older men of the family to stay at home since they're not fit to work in the factory or the mine, the meat doesn't go to them. It goes to those who are working. I agree that some limitations might arise there: I can't recall how many hours of the day miner work took, but factories in the 19th century, until some laws were passes, had 14-16 hours a regular day of work, usually 7 days per week. That doesn't leave a lot of time to buy some meat, and make it edible. Since factories preferred children and women (because they can pay less to them. Fun fact: the wage difference between men and women haven't changed much since women entered the city labor force in the 14th-15th century in the Western world), it's only logical to me that they had less access to meat. But I can't see it as a result of direct discrimination. This has so much more to do to labor and industrialization, IMHO.

Anyway, back to point. The first time that the English Poor Law was changed since 1620 was in 1834 (or so). Because of hedging processes and the industrialization there were a lot more poor who fled into the cities trying to find jobs. There were some sort of shelters, in even yet more horrible terms than the factories, and you'd really have to be despite to get into one - though it did get you some sort of shelter, in the most basic sense of "roof over one's head". And it was a lot harder to "prove" you're poor after that amendment passed. I think that when you talk of so much more population who's more close to starving than malnutrition during that very specific time, most of them young (under 20), getting the gender argument clear out of all of this is very risky and problematic.

ION. Any chance DW's Doomsday will ever NOT make me cry? Please? I caught the very last 10 minutes of it and I was in tears after 6 seconds, on the clock.

This made me laugh, so I'm sharing: My friend AndreAnna's blog, in which she and her husband video the adventure of cleaning behind the couch. They have two toddlers and a dog.

I don't think the author is claiming that it's a result of direct discrimination, just another example of the pattern she's pointing out.

Maybe I should read the book, but right now, even the pattern doesn't sound like a causative link to me.

So far, I'm not sure what's supposed to be causing what. In this chapter, it's just a pattern.