thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
And the proper progressive response to such generic complaints by young women should be "You want equality, you get fucking equality. Men don't get protection from your unwanted advances, so suck it up." EDIT: But no, these women want the protective benefits of conservative social and sexual norms without the restrictions. They want the ability to exploit men's desires for them granted by progressive norms without the risk of men exploiting them in return.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
8mo ago
Even the states which hate requiring ID use some form of proof.
This requirement is a joke:
The ID may be either a current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.
Given the prevalence of "paperless" billing, we've (or at least, my state has) decided that simply printing out a copy of your online bill suffices. They don't actually keep the copy for future validation so it is completely trivial to forge. To add insult to injury, this is considered a better form of ID than the temporary driver's license we are issued before the real one gets sent which isn't considered an acceptable form of ID for registration.
If there is any hope for preserving female-only spaces (in public) then it must be by re-asserting that the legal protections for women are for members of the female sex, and not anyone who identifies as a woman. There really is no other way out.
There should be no hope for preserving female-only spaces or legal protections. The west has adopted "equality of the sexes" as foundational and women should have to bear the cost of that as much as men do. They shouldn't get to simultaneously claim equality and special treatment as it suits them.
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
Race isn't a monolith. Gender is not a monolith. I would reject any fellow progressive's premise that every white person is inherently racist and that every man is anti-feminist, simply because there is a non-zero amount of white people who aren't racist and a non-zero amount of men who are anti-feminist.
The gender equivalent to racism would be sexism, not anti-feminism. Equating being against an ideology that preaches it is okay to hate and abuse people because of their gender with sexism is an interesting way of "acknowledging the nuance in gender issues".
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
Do you have similar feelings about revenge porn? After all, if she didn't want those pictures out there, she shouldn't have had them taken in the first place. I find it rather perverse that men who engage in oral sex with condoms are considered to be freely giving "a gift — an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee", so have no legal recourse should she decide to use the sperm to later artificially inseminate herself and burden him with responsibility for a child while women who consent to recording sexual activities are protected from his later use of said recordings.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
I think the point of this stunt is that conservatives are more upset about the non-monetary costs involved, namely the destruction of their local culture. It is the same arguments that liberals make about colonialization and gentrification, except applied to cultures that liberals don't like.
Setting up a snitch hotline for employees to inform on each other and warning that non-snitchers will be punished for failing to snitch on their colleagues
My employer's annual DEI training (required by government contracts...) for the last few years has included mandatory reporting of discrimination and harassment, with the explicit warning that witnessing such and not reporting it will result in punishment "up to and including termination". It seems more likely to me that they adopted the same reporting policy as before just with different behavior to report than that they were intending "panicked overcompliance".
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
7mo ago
Why not allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy, but require the schools to cosign the loans?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
From her campaign website:
Protect Civil Rights and Freedoms
Vice President Harris and Governor Walz believe many fundamental freedoms are at stake in this election. They will fight to ensure that Americans have the opportunity to participate in our democracy by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights and the Freedom to Vote Acts — laws that will enshrine voting rights protections, expand vote-by-mail and early voting, and more. Her Administration will also continue to protect Americans from discrimination, building on her work to secure $2 billion in funding for Offices of Civil Rights across the federal government. And as President, she’ll always defend the freedom to love who you love openly and with pride. In 2004, she officiated some of the nation’s first same-sex marriages and as Attorney General, she refused to defend California’s anti-marriage equality statewide referendum. As President, she’ll fight to pass the Equality Act to enshrine anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQI+ Americans in health care, housing, education, and more into law.
The Equality Act explicitly adds protection against discrimination based on gender identity to existing federal anti-discrimination laws (titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, IX). That hardly seems like "sprinting away as fast as she can".
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
How much do you think it costs to prevent trace contamination from a fairly common ingredient in other products? Your options are effectively 1) extremely thorough cleaning, 2) completely separate production facilities, or 3) stop making either the products with sesame or those without. Option 3 is by far the cheapest and there's apparently more demand for products with sesame than without.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
I'm not aware of any helpful published surveys supporting this, but to my mind the counter-narrative where Southern patriarchs eagerly guard the honor of their random enslaved field hands is making the more extraordinary claim.
They presumably wouldn't have been guarding the honor of their "random enslaved field hands" so much as their productivity. A slave was an investment. Part of that investment particularly for female slaves was breeding potential. An unexpected pregnancy with unknown paternity eats into that investment.
Given the overall attitude to women of that class, why would they be believed and avenged rather than punished for causing trouble and/or assumed to have themselves been the seducers?
Slaves were property and damaging the property of the elite is generally not tolerated regardless of whether or not they actually cared about the women.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
I think some people use the 'one drop rule' for determining whether or not a forum is a white nationalist forum.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
But it still just leaves me scratching my head when I see the degree to which women are shocked and disgusted when they learn that they're desired, since it shows that their mental model of the world was pretty damn off.
The women already know they're desired. They are shocked and disgusted by the social faux pas of men confronting them with that desire when they aren't themselves interested.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2yr ago
If you get drunk and repeatedly call a man a "dick" we don't generally run a story about a "sexist outburst."
I expect that if you got drunk and repeatedly called a woman a "cunt" it would be considered a "sexist outburst" however.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
But I have to wonder- in practice, a 50%+1 majority usually means you need to work with the opposing party at least a little bit anyways. What do democrats think they’re avoiding?
There was an elaborate power-sharing agreement put in place after the election resulted in a tie, with leadership positions held jointly by members of both parties. These leadership positions are set at the beginning of the session and remain in place for the entire session. Importantly, these positions control the agenda of the house and its committees, so the power sharing agreement effectively ensured that neither party could push out the other's agenda. That tie was disrupted by the disqualification of a DFL member, giving the GOP a temporary majority until a special election is held. The GOP is trying to take advantage of that temporary majority to appoint its members to all the leadership positions before the special election (likely) restores the tie. The DFL tried to fast-track that special election, but the courts denied it. Now they are trying to stall until the election can be held and the tie restored so the power sharing agreement would also get restored.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Why do you think women fail to realize that men are visually stimulated? We're told this constantly. We're told that if a man acts out, it's because of what a woman wore, how she looked. Sure, men shouldn't rape, but did you see what she was wearing?
Here it is, women's favorite motte and bailey. Yes, if a man rapes a woman he is responsible for it no matter what she is wearing. However, what you wear is signaling. Wearing clothing that draws attention to your sexual characteristics and then complaining when people give you sexual attention (eg, lewding, catcalling) is sexual harassment. On your end. You initiated it, you are responsible for it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
That is exactly my point. I'm not saying men's and women's nipples should or shouldn't be treated the same, I'm saying that the difference in treatment @Stingray3906 was asking about is tied to social expectations placed on others. You can't change one without the other.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
Men don't get scrutinized for their nipples being visible in public. Why should women?
Women don't get in trouble for leering at men's nipples when they are visible in public, no matter how uncomfortable it makes the men. Women can have the same "freedom" to expose themselves when they give up the power to sexualize and punish men's gaze.
I do not think one injustice justifies another. We can, and should, get rid of both.
Empty words. Those pushing for gender equality have proven time and again that they only care about equality when women get the short end of the stick. You need to prove that you will actually get rid of both here rather than stopping once you get the benefits (EDIT:) if you want to convince me to support you.
I don't understand this sentence. No amount of women "show[ing] off" justifies sexual assault or harassment.
The problem is that behavior by men towards women that is perceived as sexual assault or harassment isn't perceived as such when done by women toward men. Men have to "justify" behaviors that women get to just do with no consequence. Women showing off therefore either needs to be more restricted than men doing so or women need to put up with all the behaviors from men that men have to put up with from women.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Your choice in what to wear is expressive speech in the "freedom of speech" sense of the term. Wear whatever you want in private. In public, your choice in what to wear is communication and if your communication is not respectful to those around you then don't expect respect in return.
People's response to CP generally makes significantly more sense if you model it as a disgust reaction to the people who'd consume it rather than any true concern for children's wellbeing. The fact that no children were harmed (EDIT:) in this case doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that some creep is actually finding some enjoyment in life.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Having sex in a nightclub bathroom with an attractive stranger is the highlight of your life;
I realize I'm a bit of an outlier when it comes to sex, but does this really appeal to many straight men? That sounds more like a nightmare to me and I didn't think I was that much of an outlier.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
The progressive movement that exists today is overwhelmingly sex negative: they are in favor of raising the age of consent (to 25), against age gaps, against workplace relationships, against flirting in public, or in bars, or everywhere except designated dating apps, against prostitution, against pornography (except onlyfans), against sex comedies, against sexy women in video games, against revealing clothing in movies.
The progressive movement that exists today can be summarized as "Straight male sexuality bad, everything else good!". They are in favor of raising the age of consent, but deny that women actually need to get consent from men. They are against age gaps, but deny behavior of older women toward younger men is sexual. They are against men flirting with women unless the women desire it, but think women should be free to flirt with men whenever they wish. They are against any media that panders to the sexual desires of straight men, but are okay with media that panders to the sexual desires of others.
"Sex positivity" has always been tied up in Feminism and thus has always only cared about ensuring sexual outcomes are positive for women.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
This lines up with my feelings quite well. Yet another feminist who can't get over her perspective as a woman. Particularly egregious in my mind is her paragraph on the domestic sphere:
Then there’s the domestic sphere. Last summer, a Psychology Today article caused a stir online by pointing out that “dating opportunities for heterosexual men are diminishing as relationship standards rise.” No longer dependent on marriage as a means to financial security or even motherhood (a growing number of women are choosing to create families by themselves, with the help of reproductive technology), women are “increasingly selective,” leading to a rise in lonely, single young men — more of whom now live with their parents than a romantic partner. Men also account for almost 3 of every 4 “deaths of despair,” either from a suicide, alcohol abuse or an overdose.
She spares no thought for the fact that while women are no longer dependent on marriage as a means to having a family, men are still very dependent on women and thus increasingly at their mercy.
I'd be less critical of it if it merely ignored men. Instead it often takes blatant evidence of discrimination against men and views it as discrimination against women. Eg, consider the section on education, which says of higher education:
"Women represent a majority of college students" here is hiding a large and growing gender gap in college education going back over 40 years at this point. Worse, pointing out women hold two-third's of the nation's student debt and implying it is discriminatory against women completely hides both that women are very nearly two-thirds of college students (so it is nearly proportionate) and hides the structural issues that disproportionately prevent men from accessing student loans, most prominently being men having to sign up for selective service in order to be eligible for (note this changed very recently, with men being automatically enrolled since so many weren't doing so voluntarily...) the government subsidized loans which make up over 90% of student loan debt. This is like claiming whites were being discriminated against because they held a disproportionate amount of outstanding mortgage debt at the height of redlining.
More options
Context Copy link