Better still would be to beat the deniers in the next election and save our civilization.
Chances are, Trump's administration is going to be a complete shitshow and people are going to screaming for change in 4 years. It tends to happen when fanatics get unchecked power.
If the Democrats can find their spine, fight gerrymandering at the Supreme Court, and rub everyone's nose in the mess made by Trump and the Republicans, the true majority of people who care about the future can get back power and get us off carbon fuels.
I'm only saying this about the Federal Liberals though. In contrast, I think the Ontario Liberals should serve jail time for the gross incompetence they've displayed.
That I can 100% agree with. But let me know when you get Toronto to stop voting for them, and between 23-30% of the province is directly employed by them.
You might be surprised at how easily the conservatives could win in Ontario, especially given how bad things have gone at that level. I voted for the Liberals last time, in Ontario and federally, and I know alot of other people in Ottawa and Toronto who would vote Ontario PC given the chance. The margins were very small last time, so a small shift could do it. This would be my two point plan:
- Stop the right-wing identity politics crap (gay marriage, shutting down the CBC, etc). This is unnerving and loathsome to the average voter, and the fanatics will vote conservative anyways. What else are they gonna do, vote Christian Heritage and let Wynne get in again? - Come up with a detailed and carefully considered plan that will actually improve the economy for average people. Just saying tax cuts will do it is not enough, but if you really do make things better for everyone people will keep voting you in.
I actually think feminism is more important for our society then ever. In the US people looked at an overqualified woman and a complete buffoon of a man and thought it was a tough choice. Implicit bias was a part of this failed decision making.
You can't get over your personal biases without a correction, and the Liberal cabinet is a great example of that. People claim that having a quota would lead to picking mediocre women over qualified men, because they don't see their own biases actually give mediocre men a leg up. The result is the most professionally qualified* cabinet we've had, and certainly head and shoulders above the previous cabinet.
* Not necessarily going to lead to results, but we'll see.
This is probably the most professionally experienced and accomplished cabinet we've ever had. We have a doctor as health minister, a climate change researcher as environment minster, a former Olympian as minister of sport (granted its a BS ministry, but a good example of this pattern). This isn't to say they'll do a good job, but saying they're unskilled is nonsense.
Its even more striking to compare this bunch to the Harper gang. His ministers were chosen for being toadies and yes men. What was Joe Oliver's particular expertise? Chris Alexander? Paul Calandra? Maxime Bernier? The current leadership race is such a farce as no one knew what they were doing with Boss Harper gone.
everyone in rural America and flyover country made 100% sure their vote counted, and wow, did it!
I grew up in rural America, and I live in a flyover state.
I know first hand from years of experience how people in that demographic think.
I also know that they will be the ones who benefit the least and are hurt the most by what Trump accomplishes.
They key thing you will find if you look closely at Trumps history, is that he does everything for himself.
He has not a shred of compassion, empathy or altruism in him.
Try hard to convince yourself that he is a Patriot and actually cares about the American people, but it won't do any good.
Vindication is like ashes in your mouth.
The evening of the election I had a chance to speak to a middle aged blue-collar looking guy, who told me he had worked in paper mills.
Before any results were in he predicted a Trump victory. He mentioned specifically visiting the Rust Belt states and the abject poverty and decay he had seen in these areas (I'm in Canada, but in a major city close to the great lakes area). He seemed uneasy and not necessarily happy with the idea of President Trump.
I actually feel this is the most tragic part of the results. The people who helped swing the vote to Trump are going to bear the brunt of the damage.
Liberals aren't going to be feeling the pain. The type of white-collar professionals and well-off people who hate Trump the most are also the ones who will be most insulated from the damage. They have wealth, private health insurance, the ability to change jobs and move to a new country if things get really bad. The idea of Trump and the hard right Republican cronies he has picked up making things better for the working class or the Rust Belt beggars belief. I'd love to be wrong, but this election will have severe consequences for many of his lower income supporters.
I've been thinking along similar lines. This election is proof that the internet has made us dumber in a collective sense. Its a case of more communication leading to more disinformation and a worse decision.
Trump supporters like to claim that the media is biased, but they're consumers of the severely biased online media (Breitbart, certain places on reddit, certain blogs).
The old media has a bias, as everyone does, but they still believe in the quaint notion of true and false. Trump doesn't believe in an objective reality greater then himself. You can see in the debate where he would not miss a beat before answering with a blatant lie, because he doesn't think about his statements as being true or false. His statements are authoritarian proclamations.
I think you're onto something with the generational shift, but alot of the worst deplorables online (like 4chan) are young people, so I'm not so sure this will get better over time.
This is the last straw for me, and I fundamentally don't trust Microsoft anymore.
I wasn't crazy about Windows 10 when it first came out. Its the first Windows with monetization and spyware baked in. I also find it much buggier then previous versions, as if they have cut their testing.
The big change is they now seem to view 7 and 8 users as freeloaders and are willing to damage their experience to get them to 10. I think in Microsoft's view if you have a Windows install that isn't using their app store and seeing their ads in the start menu, you don't matter. This change is part of a broader pattern of screwing their users that started with the hard sell on Windows 10 updates.
They have altered the deal, and anyone who runs Windows now needs to pray that they don't alter it any further.
Slashdot has more scientifically literate people than alot of other sites, but its been dominated by American right-wing grievance politics for a awhile now, and its only getting more extreme.
These global warming threads have been a bell weather for the site's decline. If you read one for each year going back, you see would see more intelligent comments and less denial the further back you go.
This place used to be for college-age computer geeks and STEM majors, now its for middle-aged Trump voters.
OK, so ignore the above as I accidentally submitted and have forgotten how to edit anything.
The link I posted is the best rebutal I could find, but its still complete nonsense. It misrepresents what FF's videos are saying and attacks these strawmen arguments.
The one good point is that the media theories used were developed for TV and video games are a different medium. This is a solid objection, but is pointing out a weakness and not refuting anything.
As for the strawmen:
- "FF says censor X." Nope, they're just pointing out X is common. They don't even say X is bad, they leave that judgement to the viewer.
-"FF bullies people." Anita Sarkeesian doesn't personally bully anyone. If people who enjoy her videos do, that's beyond her control, and also has nothing to do with her arguments.
-"FF says video games cause sexism". Again, nope, she says they are part of culture and help reinforce exisiting stereotypes, a much more reasonable and nuanced position.
-"FF says these games are bad." AS goes out of her way to say she enjoys some of these games and you do to, its not a binary thing. You can criticize some things about the game while enjoying the game as a whole.
-"FF says I'm bad." Nothing in these videos is directed at anyone personally. See above, if she were saying this she would be condemning herself.
Care to point me towards these debunkings? I've been looking for counter-arguments for FF's videos and found nothing.
This was one of the relatively sane ones: [url=http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/why-feminist-frequency-almost-made-me-quit-writing-about-video-games-part-2]aaa[/url]
For example, Republicans have been pushing voter ID laws which include stricter ID standards, more bureaucratic hoops to get ID, and the closing of offices to get IDs in areas which, by some crazy coincidence, are where black people live. None of these things are racist on the face of it, but the result is that its harder for black people to vote, and thus that fewer blacks vote. The Republicans and their supporters know this, but bristle at accusations of racism because, hey, its not like they used the N-word or anything like that.
If what you say about republicans is true, then democrats are akin to the khamer rouge. And please, I live in Canada, I've lived in Europe. The US is one of very *few* western countries that doesn't have a requirement of voter ID.
This has nothing to do with "making it harder" especially when states are willing to hand out the ID for free. It seems to me, that democrats would be much happier to let people vote as many times as they can and "call it democracy." I mean it's not like there haven't been a string of democrats having been charged in the last year for election fraud or anything right? I mean there was one two days ago, that was charged with 19 counts I believe.
None of what you said address the fact that a certain percentage of people don't have valid ID, and that these people tend to be poor and black. The Republican party has a clear incentive to push tougher ID laws, and coincidentally that is exactly what they have done. Given their other un-democratic tendencies (eg Gerrymandering), and their history of racist rhetoric, I'm not as inclined as you are to give them the benefit of the doubt. I shouldn't have to say this, but the Democratic party is also pretty unethical in my book, so please don't accuse me of defending them again. On the issue of race there is a clear difference, whereas the US used to have 2 racist parties, after 1964 one party has at least made an attempt to join the modern world.
I'm sorry you can't see that the US is still a deeply racist society in many ways. The legal system is incredibly biased, harassment by the police is a major problem, and the Republican party still finds mass appeal in certain states with dog-whistle, coded racism. Its a bigger social problem, not the fault of one party, but the Republican party has chosen to be the standard bearer of that racism (see the Southern Strategy, still in effect).
The US is a deeply racist society? I haven't read anything so funny in all my life. I'm guessing you've never traveled to japan, s.korea, malaysia or anything. You want to see deeply racist, try looking there. Or better yet, go look at the middle east...you'll see what a deeply racist society looks like. I do find it funny though that you use key words and talking points right out of the various left-wing pundits though. Perhaps you're so biased, and so deeply ingrained in your own bigotry that you can't see what you're actually saying.
I don't disagree with your take on those other societies, but its irrelevant. I don't blame you for wanting to dodge the subject however, as that would require you to defend a position that is pretty obviously stupid.
As for your comments about bias, its obvious from your posts that you have extremely strident right-wing ideological commitments. I chose to respond to the post and not the poster. For what its worth I'm not politically committed one way or the other, I just believe that on this particular issue the Republican party, and American right (which you seem to identify with, despite being Canadian) are dead wrong, and I don't mind saying it.
If you are really interested in exploring the ugly side of US racism I would recommend 'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander. Their justice and prison system are appalling. Read that and tell me that 'deeply racist' is too strong.
The 'race card' is a phrase which means to point out or discuss racism. The new consensus for Republicans is that overt racism is ugly and unacceptable, as is discussing it, but anything else is fair game.
For example, Republicans have been pushing voter ID laws which include stricter ID standards, more bureaucratic hoops to get ID, and the closing of offices to get IDs in areas which, by some crazy coincidence, are where black people live. None of these things are racist on the face of it, but the result is that its harder for black people to vote, and thus that fewer blacks vote. The Republicans and their supporters know this, but bristle at accusations of racism because, hey, its not like they used the N-word or anything like that.
I'm sorry you can't see that the US is still a deeply racist society in many ways. The legal system is incredibly biased, harassment by the police is a major problem, and the Republican party still finds mass appeal in certain states with dog-whistle, coded racism. Its a bigger social problem, not the fault of one party, but the Republican party has chosen to be the standard bearer of that racism (see the Southern Strategy, still in effect).
I mentioned those two exact things in my original post, that feminism is a belief in equality coupled with a social criticism that our society is not equal.
Implicit in feminism is the realization that we live in a male-dominated society, not a female-dominated one. In your hypothetical female-dominated society I'm sure there would be something called masculinism. I think you could put both those ideas under the umbrella of humanism, which puts humans and their well-being at the centre of our moral universe.
As a matter of fact, humans used to live in matriarchal societies in pre-literate times: Google "The Alphabet vs The Goddess".
I don't think you're entirely correct. Feminism -has- done some damage in this area.
People desire status and that is true of all genders. And while I wasn't alive 100 years ago to know with certainty, I do not believe the phrase "...just a house wife" was uttered by same in a self-deprecating tone back then. But I hear it from women on a regular basis in our times. The idea that a woman must have a successful career in order to feel pride is the *fault* of feminism.
Not really, men are subject to the same expectation. I think its natural that as women are able to have careers the same pressures are put on them as men, but I don't see how you could blame feminism for this. Feminists aren't automatically at fault for every problem in our society.
The other four points you make seem to be against something other than GP's points. I mean of course we all want to improve society, of course *no one* is telling western women to compare their lot with Iran and gratefully shut up. And come on, central air and vaccinations aren't really on topic are they?
The post I responded too seemed to say exactly that, that trying to improve women's status in our Western countries was vain when women are treated worse elsewhere. This is like calling the people who run your city's water supply jackasses, because so many people in Africa have no clean water, and they're obsessed with mineral content, chlorination, etc.
I think feminism ( as I see it around me ) really does have it wrong. I think they are trying to actually make men and women equal and that is a terrible idea. If feminists *really* cared about women generally and not only for themselves specifically they would be out in force correcting the economic problems that force women into the work force. Having a choice is great, and I'm all on board with it, but I truly believe that for most women the choice they really want is no longer available to them.
Why is it feminists specifically who have to make our economy more fair? Its everyone responsibility, and in my experience many feminists do argue in favour of a more fair economy.
This Duluth model is your personal bugaboo, so you'll have to explain to me what it is and why I should care.
Also, I told you that only a complete idiot would believe that rich elite men care for other men. I'm not sure how to be more clear on this. Read my original post.
... What if they see "giving women what they say they want" as part of their interests?...
You're looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses. You think the sexism in society was more than fair? That's your opinion. Some women felt it wasn't, and decided to try to change things for the better. These people were called feminists.
Frankly, I feel these women had a better understanding of their place in society than your idealized, nostalgic point of view.
My problem is that it's truthy sounding nonsense claiming the imprimatur of verifiability using sciency-sounding words, and is being used to persecute large sections of the population.
So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.
And you see this is where feminism falls down, extrapolating from the "personal is the political" mantra of the 70s feminists point to a few rich people as evidence that all men have oppressed all women forever, despite these few wealthy people never having acted to improve the situation or welfare of men as a class. Your mythical boys club doesn't exist. As for most of the money being in the hands of men, most of the spending power is in the hands of those poor oppressed women. But hey what's a few nuances to the blunt instrument that is feminism.
My original post made the exact opposite argument. The 'boys club' is not interested in helping men as a category, its a handful of selfish men (with a handful of women) pissing on everyone else. If you actually thought this is what feminists believed, no wonder you are so confused.
The spending power is normal people, not the elites. Our society has become more egalitarian over the past few decades, which I personally feel is a good development. It also makes sense in light of the many single mothers out there, and kids being pretty expensive.
I note you haven't disputed the veracity of the description of patriarchy theory given above, nor the effects it has had when applied to real life. The Swedish model is a good one, feminists decided that criminalising the clients of sex workers was the way to go because patriarchy, right, except the end result was fewer and more violent clients. Which a five year old could have told you would be the outcome - criminalise clients and the clients will mostly be criminals. Well done feminists, leaving yet another trail of bodies and broken lives behind you, except this time it's women.
I frankly don't know alot about these things, which is why I didn't bite. If you feel these are important issues, champion them yourselves, rather than sneer at other people for not doing so.
Now we can continue this two step as long as you like but the bottom line is that feminism is by its own outcomes based on a particularly hateful central premise. You're waving at the wealthy one percent while I'm talking about police departments being trained to arrest the man in all circumstances, even when he's the victim of domestic violence, which is about half the time.
I mean is this thing turned on or what.
Men are also raped about as often as women are. Again, the problem is that the windmill you are tilting at is not feminism. The world is unfair in many ways, and you would have to be a total idiot to claim that all men live like kings.
Slashdot Mirror
Undoing bad mod.
Undoing bad mod
Undoing accidental mod
Trump's voters are at the stage of the con where they start to wonder, "Odd, I thought that nice man would be back with my watch by now."
Better still would be to beat the deniers in the next election and save our civilization.
Chances are, Trump's administration is going to be a complete shitshow and people are going to screaming for change in 4 years. It tends to happen when fanatics get unchecked power.
If the Democrats can find their spine, fight gerrymandering at the Supreme Court, and rub everyone's nose in the mess made by Trump and the Republicans, the true majority of people who care about the future can get back power and get us off carbon fuels.
...
I'm only saying this about the Federal Liberals though. In contrast, I think the Ontario Liberals should serve jail time for the gross incompetence they've displayed.
That I can 100% agree with. But let me know when you get Toronto to stop voting for them, and between 23-30% of the province is directly employed by them.
You might be surprised at how easily the conservatives could win in Ontario, especially given how bad things have gone at that level. I voted for the Liberals last time, in Ontario and federally, and I know alot of other people in Ottawa and Toronto who would vote Ontario PC given the chance. The margins were very small last time, so a small shift could do it. This would be my two point plan:
- Stop the right-wing identity politics crap (gay marriage, shutting down the CBC, etc). This is unnerving and loathsome to the average voter, and the fanatics will vote conservative anyways. What else are they gonna do, vote Christian Heritage and let Wynne get in again?
- Come up with a detailed and carefully considered plan that will actually improve the economy for average people. Just saying tax cuts will do it is not enough, but if you really do make things better for everyone people will keep voting you in.
I actually think feminism is more important for our society then ever. In the US people looked at an overqualified woman and a complete buffoon of a man and thought it was a tough choice. Implicit bias was a part of this failed decision making.
You can't get over your personal biases without a correction, and the Liberal cabinet is a great example of that. People claim that having a quota would lead to picking mediocre women over qualified men, because they don't see their own biases actually give mediocre men a leg up. The result is the most professionally qualified* cabinet we've had, and certainly head and shoulders above the previous cabinet.
* Not necessarily going to lead to results, but we'll see.
This is probably the most professionally experienced and accomplished cabinet we've ever had. We have a doctor as health minister, a climate change researcher as environment minster, a former Olympian as minister of sport (granted its a BS ministry, but a good example of this pattern). This isn't to say they'll do a good job, but saying they're unskilled is nonsense.
Its even more striking to compare this bunch to the Harper gang. His ministers were chosen for being toadies and yes men. What was Joe Oliver's particular expertise? Chris Alexander? Paul Calandra? Maxime Bernier? The current leadership race is such a farce as no one knew what they were doing with Boss Harper gone.
everyone in rural America and flyover country made 100% sure their vote counted, and wow, did it!
I grew up in rural America, and I live in a flyover state.
I know first hand from years of experience how people in that demographic think.
I also know that they will be the ones who benefit the least and are hurt the most by what Trump accomplishes.
They key thing you will find if you look closely at Trumps history, is that he does everything for himself.
He has not a shred of compassion, empathy or altruism in him.
Try hard to convince yourself that he is a Patriot and actually cares about the American people, but it won't do any good.
Vindication is like ashes in your mouth.
The evening of the election I had a chance to speak to a middle aged blue-collar looking guy, who told me he had worked in paper mills.
Before any results were in he predicted a Trump victory. He mentioned specifically visiting the Rust Belt states and the abject poverty and decay he had seen in these areas (I'm in Canada, but in a major city close to the great lakes area). He seemed uneasy and not necessarily happy with the idea of President Trump.
I actually feel this is the most tragic part of the results. The people who helped swing the vote to Trump are going to bear the brunt of the damage.
Liberals aren't going to be feeling the pain. The type of white-collar professionals and well-off people who hate Trump the most are also the ones who will be most insulated from the damage. They have wealth, private health insurance, the ability to change jobs and move to a new country if things get really bad. The idea of Trump and the hard right Republican cronies he has picked up making things better for the working class or the Rust Belt beggars belief. I'd love to be wrong, but this election will have severe consequences for many of his lower income supporters.
I've been thinking along similar lines. This election is proof that the internet has made us dumber in a collective sense. Its a case of more communication leading to more disinformation and a worse decision.
Trump supporters like to claim that the media is biased, but they're consumers of the severely biased online media (Breitbart, certain places on reddit, certain blogs).
The old media has a bias, as everyone does, but they still believe in the quaint notion of true and false. Trump doesn't believe in an objective reality greater then himself. You can see in the debate where he would not miss a beat before answering with a blatant lie, because he doesn't think about his statements as being true or false. His statements are authoritarian proclamations.
I think you're onto something with the generational shift, but alot of the worst deplorables online (like 4chan) are young people, so I'm not so sure this will get better over time.
Thanks for the sane comment. I just opened this week's popular stories to catch up, and they're totally polluted by angry and paranoid Trump fans.
I'll be back when Dr. McCoy revives Kirk.
This is the last straw for me, and I fundamentally don't trust Microsoft anymore.
I wasn't crazy about Windows 10 when it first came out. Its the first Windows with monetization and spyware baked in. I also find it much buggier then previous versions, as if they have cut their testing.
The big change is they now seem to view 7 and 8 users as freeloaders and are willing to damage their experience to get them to 10. I think in Microsoft's view if you have a Windows install that isn't using their app store and seeing their ads in the start menu, you don't matter. This change is part of a broader pattern of screwing their users that started with the hard sell on Windows 10 updates.
They have altered the deal, and anyone who runs Windows now needs to pray that they don't alter it any further.
I like it as well.
Thanks!
What's your take on the comments in this thread?
Slashdot has more scientifically literate people than alot of other sites, but its been dominated by American right-wing grievance politics for a awhile now, and its only getting more extreme.
These global warming threads have been a bell weather for the site's decline. If you read one for each year going back, you see would see more intelligent comments and less denial the further back you go.
This place used to be for college-age computer geeks and STEM majors, now its for middle-aged Trump voters.
OK, so ignore the above as I accidentally submitted and have forgotten how to edit anything.
The link I posted is the best rebutal I could find, but its still complete nonsense. It misrepresents what FF's videos are saying and attacks these strawmen arguments.
The one good point is that the media theories used were developed for TV and video games are a different medium. This is a solid objection, but is pointing out a weakness and not refuting anything.
As for the strawmen:
- "FF says censor X."
Nope, they're just pointing out X is common. They don't even say X is bad, they leave that judgement to the viewer.
-"FF bullies people."
Anita Sarkeesian doesn't personally bully anyone. If people who enjoy her videos do, that's beyond her control, and also has nothing to do with her arguments.
-"FF says video games cause sexism".
Again, nope, she says they are part of culture and help reinforce exisiting stereotypes, a much more reasonable and nuanced position.
-"FF says these games are bad."
AS goes out of her way to say she enjoys some of these games and you do to, its not a binary thing. You can criticize some things about the game while enjoying the game as a whole.
-"FF says I'm bad."
Nothing in these videos is directed at anyone personally. See above, if she were saying this she would be condemning herself.
Care to point me towards these debunkings? I've been looking for counter-arguments for FF's videos and found nothing.
This was one of the relatively sane ones: [url=http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/why-feminist-frequency-almost-made-me-quit-writing-about-video-games-part-2]aaa[/url]
For example, Republicans have been pushing voter ID laws which include stricter ID standards, more bureaucratic hoops to get ID, and the closing of offices to get IDs in areas which, by some crazy coincidence, are where black people live. None of these things are racist on the face of it, but the result is that its harder for black people to vote, and thus that fewer blacks vote. The Republicans and their supporters know this, but bristle at accusations of racism because, hey, its not like they used the N-word or anything like that.
If what you say about republicans is true, then democrats are akin to the khamer rouge. And please, I live in Canada, I've lived in Europe. The US is one of very *few* western countries that doesn't have a requirement of voter ID.
This has nothing to do with "making it harder" especially when states are willing to hand out the ID for free. It seems to me, that democrats would be much happier to let people vote as many times as they can and "call it democracy." I mean it's not like there haven't been a string of democrats having been charged in the last year for election fraud or anything right? I mean there was one two days ago, that was charged with 19 counts I believe.
None of what you said address the fact that a certain percentage of people don't have valid ID, and that these people tend to be poor and black. The Republican party has a clear incentive to push tougher ID laws, and coincidentally that is exactly what they have done. Given their other un-democratic tendencies (eg Gerrymandering), and their history of racist rhetoric, I'm not as inclined as you are to give them the benefit of the doubt. I shouldn't have to say this, but the Democratic party is also pretty unethical in my book, so please don't accuse me of defending them again. On the issue of race there is a clear difference, whereas the US used to have 2 racist parties, after 1964 one party has at least made an attempt to join the modern world.
I'm sorry you can't see that the US is still a deeply racist society in many ways. The legal system is incredibly biased, harassment by the police is a major problem, and the Republican party still finds mass appeal in certain states with dog-whistle, coded racism. Its a bigger social problem, not the fault of one party, but the Republican party has chosen to be the standard bearer of that racism (see the Southern Strategy, still in effect).
The US is a deeply racist society? I haven't read anything so funny in all my life. I'm guessing you've never traveled to japan, s.korea, malaysia or anything. You want to see deeply racist, try looking there. Or better yet, go look at the middle east...you'll see what a deeply racist society looks like. I do find it funny though that you use key words and talking points right out of the various left-wing pundits though. Perhaps you're so biased, and so deeply ingrained in your own bigotry that you can't see what you're actually saying.
I don't disagree with your take on those other societies, but its irrelevant. I don't blame you for wanting to dodge the subject however, as that would require you to defend a position that is pretty obviously stupid.
As for your comments about bias, its obvious from your posts that you have extremely strident right-wing ideological commitments. I chose to respond to the post and not the poster. For what its worth I'm not politically committed one way or the other, I just believe that on this particular issue the Republican party, and American right (which you seem to identify with, despite being Canadian) are dead wrong, and I don't mind saying it.
If you are really interested in exploring the ugly side of US racism I would recommend 'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander. Their justice and prison system are appalling. Read that and tell me that 'deeply racist' is too strong.
The 'race card' is a phrase which means to point out or discuss racism. The new consensus for Republicans is that overt racism is ugly and unacceptable, as is discussing it, but anything else is fair game.
For example, Republicans have been pushing voter ID laws which include stricter ID standards, more bureaucratic hoops to get ID, and the closing of offices to get IDs in areas which, by some crazy coincidence, are where black people live. None of these things are racist on the face of it, but the result is that its harder for black people to vote, and thus that fewer blacks vote. The Republicans and their supporters know this, but bristle at accusations of racism because, hey, its not like they used the N-word or anything like that.
I'm sorry you can't see that the US is still a deeply racist society in many ways. The legal system is incredibly biased, harassment by the police is a major problem, and the Republican party still finds mass appeal in certain states with dog-whistle, coded racism. Its a bigger social problem, not the fault of one party, but the Republican party has chosen to be the standard bearer of that racism (see the Southern Strategy, still in effect).
I mentioned those two exact things in my original post, that feminism is a belief in equality coupled with a social criticism that our society is not equal.
You're drunk dude, go home.
Implicit in feminism is the realization that we live in a male-dominated society, not a female-dominated one. In your hypothetical female-dominated society I'm sure there would be something called masculinism. I think you could put both those ideas under the umbrella of humanism, which puts humans and their well-being at the centre of our moral universe.
As a matter of fact, humans used to live in matriarchal societies in pre-literate times: Google "The Alphabet vs The Goddess".
I don't think you're entirely correct. Feminism -has- done some damage in this area.
People desire status and that is true of all genders. And while I wasn't alive 100 years ago to know with certainty, I do not believe the phrase "...just a house wife" was uttered by same in a self-deprecating tone back then. But I hear it from women on a regular basis in our times. The idea that a woman must have a successful career in order to feel pride is the *fault* of feminism.
Not really, men are subject to the same expectation. I think its natural that as women are able to have careers the same pressures are put on them as men, but I don't see how you could blame feminism for this. Feminists aren't automatically at fault for every problem in our society.
The other four points you make seem to be against something other than GP's points. I mean of course we all want to improve society, of course *no one* is telling western women to compare their lot with Iran and gratefully shut up. And come on, central air and vaccinations aren't really on topic are they?
The post I responded too seemed to say exactly that, that trying to improve women's status in our Western countries was vain when women are treated worse elsewhere. This is like calling the people who run your city's water supply jackasses, because so many people in Africa have no clean water, and they're obsessed with mineral content, chlorination, etc.
I think feminism ( as I see it around me ) really does have it wrong. I think they are trying to actually make men and women equal and that is a terrible idea. If feminists *really* cared about women generally and not only for themselves specifically they would be out in force correcting the economic problems that force women into the work force. Having a choice is great, and I'm all on board with it, but I truly believe that for most women the choice they really want is no longer available to them.
Why is it feminists specifically who have to make our economy more fair? Its everyone responsibility, and in my experience many feminists do argue in favour of a more fair economy.
This Duluth model is your personal bugaboo, so you'll have to explain to me what it is and why I should care.
Also, I told you that only a complete idiot would believe that rich elite men care for other men. I'm not sure how to be more clear on this. Read my original post.
... What if they see "giving women what they say they want" as part of their interests?...
You're looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses. You think the sexism in society was more than fair? That's your opinion. Some women felt it wasn't, and decided to try to change things for the better. These people were called feminists.
Frankly, I feel these women had a better understanding of their place in society than your idealized, nostalgic point of view.
My problem is that it's truthy sounding nonsense claiming the imprimatur of verifiability using sciency-sounding words, and is being used to persecute large sections of the population.
So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.
And you see this is where feminism falls down, extrapolating from the "personal is the political" mantra of the 70s feminists point to a few rich people as evidence that all men have oppressed all women forever, despite these few wealthy people never having acted to improve the situation or welfare of men as a class. Your mythical boys club doesn't exist. As for most of the money being in the hands of men, most of the spending power is in the hands of those poor oppressed women. But hey what's a few nuances to the blunt instrument that is feminism.
My original post made the exact opposite argument. The 'boys club' is not interested in helping men as a category, its a handful of selfish men (with a handful of women) pissing on everyone else. If you actually thought this is what feminists believed, no wonder you are so confused.
The spending power is normal people, not the elites. Our society has become more egalitarian over the past few decades, which I personally feel is a good development. It also makes sense in light of the many single mothers out there, and kids being pretty expensive.
I note you haven't disputed the veracity of the description of patriarchy theory given above, nor the effects it has had when applied to real life. The Swedish model is a good one, feminists decided that criminalising the clients of sex workers was the way to go because patriarchy, right, except the end result was fewer and more violent clients. Which a five year old could have told you would be the outcome - criminalise clients and the clients will mostly be criminals. Well done feminists, leaving yet another trail of bodies and broken lives behind you, except this time it's women.
I frankly don't know alot about these things, which is why I didn't bite. If you feel these are important issues, champion them yourselves, rather than sneer at other people for not doing so.
Now we can continue this two step as long as you like but the bottom line is that feminism is by its own outcomes based on a particularly hateful central premise. You're waving at the wealthy one percent while I'm talking about police departments being trained to arrest the man in all circumstances, even when he's the victim of domestic violence, which is about half the time.
I mean is this thing turned on or what.
Men are also raped about as often as women are. Again, the problem is that the windmill you are tilting at is not feminism. The world is unfair in many ways, and you would have to be a total idiot to claim that all men live like kings.