rm | I imagine the New York Times wants me to break something

I imagine the New York Times wants me to break something

I imagine that the new American dustiness affects women’s happiness more than men’s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26leonhardt.html

"There haven’t been any dust-related technological breakthroughs, so houses are probably just dirtier than they used to be."

Er yes. Because vaccuum cleaners have nothing to do with dust, and there haven't been any improved models of those at all, at all. And modern floor coverings aren't made of differnt fibres which are more resistant to dust and dirt, and people don't wear different kinds of clothes, or bathe more, or have less clutter and knickknacks and heavy drapes which all used to catch the dust. Nope, all us modern women are just lazy and grimy, whoo.

The only problem with dust now compared with 50 years ago is that there is more of it now. Dust is directly related to the environment in which you live. I know someone who lives in the desert in AZ and even if every window in the house is closed there will be a thin layer of dust every single day. She vacuums and vacuums to no avail. Now she vacuums once a week and feather dusts daily to at least get it off of surfaces.

It varies from place to place, but I'm not sure there's more of it, we've got less then a decade or so ago, for example. Isn't desert dust going to be more sand than fluff though? Must be a nightmare..

exactly...from what this friend has told me it's a grime that just cannot be gotten rid of...ick!

Interesting article, but he needs to back up that statement.

One of my weekly chores as a kid was dusting.

Hunh! We dust, like, once a year when either D's or my parents come to visit. Maybe. I usually don't notice a thing. Though we do have disputes about division of household labor (actually, we finally seem to have reached a decent balance lately, as owning a house seems to have kicked D's caretaking emotions into overdrive), dusting is so not one of them. Probably because both of our standards of cleanliness are so low.

The Times does seem to have a policy of encouraging self-hatred or at least exasperation in the contemporary urban female.

Why are you not one of those people who is troubled by backache caused by carrying around a $700+ designer bag filled with crap? Surely you can identify with women who have dropped out of high paying jobs so they can raise their children in $1.5 million Williamsburg lofts. No? What's wrong with you?

While the writer strikes me as a nitwit, the actual data from the study is fascinating. Not surprising, mind you, but fascinating.

This weekend, I think I may volunteer to do a little dusting.

Wow. How incredibly magnanamous. Forget about hitting the side of my face, I think his male gaze just decked mine and those of other American women in the teeth.

Er. Ignore the subject line. Had a longer rant, but shortened it considerably. Think my above post says all I had to say, really, and alludes to 60s art in the process. :3

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I imagine the New York Times wants me to break something

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Russian novel of a post ahoy!

Re: Russian novel of a post ahoy!