Recent posts by petesahooligan on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Out of curiousity, am I dumb or ignorant for thinking liberalism is fucking moronic?


Charter school vouchers will impact our communities in lots of ways. While affording families with greater educational liberties, it will eviscerate inner-city school budgets. It will compound a failing infrastructure and reinforce a cycle of white-flight and gentrification.

(I agree with fixing tenure in public schools. However, I also support teachers unions… so, I’m conflicted.)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

It’s worth separating the meaning of words as they apply to important ideas in social change and the meaning of those same words as they’re used in the public vernacular. There is OFTEN a huge difference.

“Check your privilege” has become a bit of a catch-phrase that sort of rides along with “first-world problem” and even “politically correct.” What these terms mean ideologically is pretty different than how they’re used in casual conversations.

It doesn’t really matter to me (or anyone else, probably) how you choose to use these words in conversation. However, when they are invoked in a conversation about social change and the issues behind it, it’s good to have a grasp on what the words represent.

0Gamer, if think the earlier example is pretty interesting. Let’s say there’s a construction job opening. A man and a woman apply for the job and they have the same amount of experience and credentials, but the man is physically stronger. In every other relevant way they are identical.

The man gets the job due to his privilege of being born a man and physically stronger. Because the job requires physical strength, the man is determined to be more qualified. That’s a form of male privilege.

It may seem like an inconsequential event. So what if the man gets the construction job, right?

In time, a leadership position within the company opens up. The same man and woman apply. The man now has experience with the company and has formed professional relationships with the decision-makers. While the leadership position is not physically demanding, and the man and the woman are still equally qualified for the position, the man will be preferred because of his experience in that company.

Multiply this thousands of times and you see professional positions in STEM fields being largely dominated by men… not to mention all those construction jobs. It’s a problem that compounds itself over time.

That’s why using a “physical meritocracy” model to explain gender inequality is not accurate. That’s only a small part of a larger systemic problem.

(Women) are more likely to receive help than men.

There’s a funny joke/observation that the reason you should never buy a white car is because a majority of all car accidents involve a car that is white.

The reason that most accidents involve a white car has nothing to do with the color of the paint but rather than most of the cars on the road are white, and accidents involve cars of all colors proportionally… so there are more white cars in accidents than any other color as a result.

Similarly, it’s like when a person moves because they read in the paper that “75% of all accidents occur within a mile of your home.” They assume that they live in a really dangerous neighborhood, so they move.

Point is: If more women need help, more women will receive help.

What do you mean by “opening access to women”? The access has been opened for a while now.

That’s not exactly true. Women are not afforded the same opportunities as men, and that’s just a simple fact.

To counter that claim that men do are not afforded the same opportunities as women is approaching the scope of the disparity at a different elevation.

Pick a metric — it can be income, or medical care, or education — and you will find that in every area men have a statistical advantage.

Forcing this 50/50 ratio between genders would be discrimination.

Nobody’s trying for “force” anything. Feminists are trying to “fix” something that is obviously broken… well, obvious to many people.

Do you think that there’s anything weird with low-paying positions being firmly in the domain of women while higher paying jobs tend to be “jobs for men?” Perhaps men don’t want to be kindergarten teachers because it doesn’t pay shit and there are other jobs that pay better AND have less competition in their way.

If a woman wants to be an airline pilot, she is free to do so. Why only a few of them want to might be in part because this job it is atypical for a woman so she might face some sort of societal pressure.

Would you agree that the societal pressure for women to choose one profession over another (when physical strength isn’t a factor) might be a form of systemic gender bias? If so, do you think it would be appropriate for society to address and correct for those biases so that better-qualified people can be fairly considered for a job?

I don’t think that looking at gender equality with the notion that all men are privileged or focusing mainly on female issues is beneficial to society.

Funny! I think that not recognizing the privileges afforded men is beneficial to society.

Also, recognizing and understanding the challenges that professional women (and minorities) face just makes you a better human being.

Incidentally, you’re doing a fine job being the “lone voice” on this one. If you do decide to back off your position a little bit, you’ll probably have to field some parting shots. Nonetheless, I admire a person that stands their ground (even when they’re hopelessly wrong).

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Belisaurius, I’m not going to argue with you about whether the Tea Party is anti-intellectual. It’s a term that lots of different editors and authors have used to describe them. I also see it in the language and delivery of their performances at the podium.

I’m not interested in the Tea Party enough to go into it right now. I consider the whole lot clowns in suits talking about stupid ideas to an audience that they think is stupid. Some people disagree with that, and that’s okay.

Actually, public funding for sports stadiums is pretty much one of the only areas that economists of all stripes largely agree; subsidies for stadiums provide pretty much zero economic benefits – they’re pretty much purely corporate welfare.

I don’t know, issendorf. The Wasilla Gatorlizards pull a pretty big crowd from the neighborhood. There are 15 kids on each team, so that’s (math) 60 parents that all need a place to sit.

TRUMP is sort of a hybrid; a genetic combination of Tea Party populism with John Wayne Gacy butchery.

For one, he’s off his mother-flippin’ rails if he thinks he can get elected to anything short of a County Council. I think the campaign implosion has begun with the “Go back to Univision” thing… which sounds a lot like “Go back to Mexico.” Jorge Ramos is a well-respected journalist and Trump has a lot of explaining to do regarding his position on immigration. Nobody in the White House can get elected without the Hispanic vote, and the Republicans’ single footing there is abortion. On every other social issue, Latinos align Democratic… but abortion isn’t really a hot issue this election season. Republicans are trying hard to MAKE it an important issue…. just watch. (We’re gonna be hearing a lot about abortion, I think.)

Donald Trump will be road-kill by the end of September. I’m willing to put $5 on it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Karma, your comment about the impact of their agenda is interesting. I was just thinking about that in regards to the active feminism thread. I just don’t really understand why someone WOULDN’T intellectually and emotionally endorse the feminist movement. Is there some inherent threat that I’m not perceiving?

Likewise, poor Republican voters often toe the party line on issues that really damage them most… and most directly. The Republic anti-union and anti-minimum wage rhetoric doesn’t favor the poor. Republicans position this argument as a job-creation stance but really what it is is a company-profit stance (that presumably turns into jobs through free-market twitchery and economic humplepuffs… but all I see is jobs that pay less).

Obamacare favors the poor but has become somehow explosive for poor right-wing voters.

Immigration is a critical issue for poor Republican voters… for some mysterious reason.

Preserving traditional marriage is another issue that generally doesn’t have shit to do with anyone except the people it provides legal protections for. It redirects attention away from Wall Street’s toxic electoral influence, among other things that directly impact the poor.

Republicans are running on a platform that parents are responsible for the education of their children. To quote the GOP’s own website, “Parents are responsible for the education of their children.” One amusing way to interpret this is that “no child shall be more educated than his or her parents.”

Meanwhile, they continue to pound mandatory sentencing (and its associated costs).

Protecting human rights is, according to the Republican platform, centered on religious freedom. There’s nothing in their language about basic human dignities or inalienable rights… it’s a cultural right. (Earth to GOP, it’s mostly all those self-proclaimed “oppressed” Christians that even give a shit.)

I obviously have no love for the GOP. They’re the party of Big Business as far as I’m concerned.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Where would I turn to for an unbiased assessment of the Tea Party’s character? How about the Tea Party’s “About Us” page!

However, I’ll play along. Taken DIRECTLY from the “About Us” page of the Tea Party’s very own website…

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

These are the Tea Party’s “non-negotiable” core beliefs. They’re really stupid. Every single one of these is thoroughly ridiculous.

So, what do they use their national spotlight to promote? Stupid ideas, like (I’m not making this shit up)… “Give gun freedom to our children!” and “Exposing Obama’s Plan to Use Illegal Aliens to Tear Down America!”

It actually IS dumb AND maniacal.

I do not think you know what an anti-intellectual is.

I think I do. (So there.)

Sarah Palin’s son is a high-school drop-out. Apparently the value of education does not permeate the Palin household. And she’s a poster-child of the Tea Party movement.

Sarah Palin’s degree is in sports journalism, and she is considered by the Tea Party as one of their celebrities. She has ZERO political impact outside of political theater.

As mayor of some Alaskan town she cut funding for the local museum and opposed building a new library, but was all in favor of a new sports stadium.

Here’s a woman that equates herself to a “mama grizzly.”

There are too many Michelle Bachmann goodies to pass up. She’s a fucking idiot that appeals to idiots.

“I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?”

Ted Cruz claimed that Net Neutrality was Obamacare for the Internet. What the hell does that even mean? Plus (if it means what I think it means), seriously?!

Ted Cruz, also a moron, denied that he threatened to shut down the government after he repeated and EXPLICITLY threatened to shut down the government. That’s how much contempt he has for the average American’s intellectual capacity. “We know you threatened to shut down the government, Stooge Cruz, because (1) we watched you do it and (2) it was last week.”

And who continues to lead the discussion about Obama’s nationality, Benghazi, and illegal immigration (when it continues its decline into new lows)? Tea Party.

Why? Because they think we’re dumb.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

I made a pretty big mistake. I was considering your use of “equal opportunity” as synonymous with “equality.” I apologize for that.

There is still a lot of work to be done in terms of EQUALITY between the genders.

It goes without saying that true equality among genders, and among people, is not within our grasp. True equality requires us all to be identical and that’s obviously not the goal.

Some people believe that their birthright is to serve, while others believe that their birthright is to rule. This is where we run into problems. I am a White male, 6-feet tall, blue eyes, about 190 pounds, and a citizen of the world’s wealthiest country… I have every genetic opportunity afforded to someone. I recognize that privilege.

I earned none of that privilege. As a male, I am provided the privilege of being (as you put it) more physically qualified to be a construction worker than a female. (And as slightly taller than average, more physically advantaged when considered for leadership roles. And as an American, more access to resources than the average human. And so on.)

However, recognizing these practical realities does not justify an anti-feminist position because it’s not a zero-sum game. If I have privileged access to construction jobs because I’m male, the only reason I would campaign against opening access to women is because I didn’t want competition from better-qualified female candidates. That would be a very self-serving reason to not support equal opportunity.

Let’s remove the physically strenuous jobs from the equation for a minute. Most of them are shitty jobs anyway.

The other jobs where we see huge gender disparities (e.g., commercial airline pilots; women are fewer than 6% of this workforce) can only be explained as deep-rooted cultural phenomena. The fact that women are not in roles that invest substantially in start-up tech businesses naturally results in companies and products being financially supported by men… complete with their societal biases. It’s not malicious; it’s merely a reflection of the same rationale you’re claiming.

That’s an example of how gender inequality perpetuates itself.

If we rely on things like culture and society to explain the “reality” of gender inequality, it still doesn’t justify it or mean that gender inequality is an immutable truth.

Feminist principle would ask us to, on a societal level, examine those SOCIETAL factors that result in gender inequality. The second and more important step is then to identify ways to correct those inequities.

Some of those corrective measures will appear to favor women… and in some cases that might be accurate. Similar to affirmative action, a particular manifestation of institutionalized gender discrimination might demand an OVER-corrective measure simply to achieve a kind of balanced equilibrium. These ideas will ALWAYS appear “radical” by critics and skeptics when compared to the status quo… but in time — provided they are sustainable and beneficial to society as a whole — they will (as I illustrated earlier) become accepted and even embraced characteristics of society.

For example, Americans value democracy and women’s right to vote supports that value. However, the idea that women might have the right to vote was once a radical notion. Today, that radical notion resides deep within the self-identity of who we are as a people.

If we were to take a more egalitarian view of gender disparity, I believe that someday we will consider our advances made in eliminating gender inequality a defining characteristic of Western culture. (Hell, we already do when we compare the West to how women are treated in Islamic countries.)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

You will remain unconvinced regardless of any evidence I produce.

Where would you like to start? I think the best place to find the most empirical evidence would be in educational achievement. In fact, let’s look at advanced degrees and see where their political affiliations lie.

Oh, oops. By a margin of 22 points, people with advanced degrees are Democrats!

The Tea Party is like the Republican Party with an 8-ball of cocaine and $10,000 in small bills. Maniacal idiots, as far as I’m concerned. Not only are they less intellectual in the extreme, but they are less intellectual in the aggregate.

EDIT: Sorry, source. Does the Pew Research Center square with you as an unbiased view?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

I wholly agree with the premise, Vika, but disagree with this particular passage:

Lunatic fringe people are just that – way out on the loony fringe, and are frankly, best ignored by everybody.

I think the lunatic fringe are VERY important to pay attention to. We don’t need to necessarily celebrate their goofy notions, but sometimes these ideas are incredibly virulent. The shape of a mass is defined by its edges, and society is dynamic… its edges are always changing. It’s helpful to know what is happening out there.

“Conspiracy theory” has become a buzz-word for “crackpot idea.” The funny thing about conspiracy theories is that some of them turn out to be true… political cover-ups… the existence (or non-existence) of powerful agencies… Machiavellian programs designed to disseminate lies. Point: Just because an idea sounds outlandish doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not true.

But I agree that in the case of that particular caller, it was wild conjecture on the motives and desired outcome of a device that, by rational accounts, seems like a valuable medical accomplishment.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Yeah, I’m not really into this “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” approach to denouncing feminism as an essential and profoundly important movement.

I’m sorry, Mystic, but I don’t have the time to sit through a 23-minute video exposing the fallacy of feminism by some guy that spends his times critiquing video games, or whatever. Can you summarize? (I appreciate the link, but I’d appreciate more a succinct summary of the principle claims he’s making.)

I don’t know what a “feminazi” is aside from it being some bullshit, misogynistic term Rush Limbaugh invented that stupid people like to throw around to show how fluent they are on contemporary issues that they really don’t know anything about. For me, the term specifically conjures, “here’s a person that has their head firmly up their ass.” Incidentally, the Republican Party doesn’t denounce its extremists either. Does that make them Nazis, too? What about Democrats and Liberals that don’t denounce their extremists? Are they Nazis? The Minutemen patrolling our southern border? Sarah Palin? Dick Cheney? Kanye West? (Yes, Kanye West is a Nazi. I saw him at a meeting.)


There’s a huge pile of evidence available right now that can be used to ascertain if we have gender equality. That evidence clearly shows that we don’t. I think it’s safe to say that we all agree with that.

Where we appear to be disagreeing is what measures we might take to truly achieve it.

For that to happen we need to define two fundamental things:

1. What does gender equality mean in practice?
2. What principle factors create gender inequality?

It’s obviously the second question that we seem to be stuck on here. (Though we also seem to have different ideas about the first.)

We know that there are societal and physiological factors. Those that claim that equality has been achieved cite physiological differences as being the principle cause, while those that feel there’s more work to be done cite societal factors. Broad strokes, right?

Mixed up with all this are ideas of the power-balance and male superiority, victimization/subjugation, gender ideology (ideals of “masculinity” and “femininity”), public policy in education and the workforce, and so on.

Each of these aspects has had truck loads of dissertations and doctoral theses written about them, and we’re not likely to unearth any more evidence than has already been scoured. BUT, I think it’s interesting to hear how you have come to feel that gender equality has been achieved. What evidence do you use to inform your opinion?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

^interesting! (And what many thoughtful people already intuit.)

In social advocacy there are colliding philosophies on message-delivery. Populist messages tend to rely on fear-based evidence while goal-oriented groups appealing to smaller groups with a specific focus, philanthropists claim, tend to respond in action more often with optimistic visions for the future.

There is also some evidence that the analysis of an issue can be heavily shaped by one’s existing ideas surrounding that issue. For (a relevant) example, if a person has an idea that the feminist movement is largely populated by misandrists, they will log evidence that supports their idea and discard evidence that disproves it… and vice versa. Idea-based investigations basically ignore one’s own biases, and it can be a clumsy way to view the world.

Political parties and candidates often try to manipulate bias. One doesn’t need to present the evidence; one only needs to present the idea. The audience will then filter new information against that idea. A powerful idea might be, “Mexicans are crossing our border and stealing our jobs.” Or, more apropos, “feminists want to emasculate men and mitigate their role in society.” Whether this is specifically true or not depends on what evidence you’re looking at. It’s EASY to find evidence that women want to castrate men… just look to Lorena Bobbit. Proof! See? Women are dangerous creatures! I tried to warn you!

Is Lorena Bobbit a fair representation of all women? Of course not. Did someone women cheer her on? Of course they did. Feminism, like any other issues of our day, cannot be easily contained in neat categories… the reality of feminism is complex, sometimes confusing or contradictory, and important… just like life in general.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

The pity of it, Mafefe, is that you’re obviously clever enough to engage the topic with real ideas and penetrating insight. I feel like you’re wasting the opportunity to sway opinion with a clownish delivery.

I’m not claiming that fascism is good, or that all radicalized actions are good, or that all feminists are good, or that all of anything is good. I don’t see the world through such polarized lenses because I’m a basically a grown up with a mind that, I think, enjoys a good idea when it encounters one.

Not every goal of the feminist movement is practical or egalitarian or in the best interests of humanity, but MOST of it is. Is it fascist that people “demanded” that women be allowed to vote? As a nation we imposed the will of some onto the lives of others… now their voting booth lines were twice as long! The outrage. Who’s in charge of this shit show!?

If you want to throw your inflammatory words around, go for it! It’s funny! But it’s not particularly interesting… at least not to me.

File under: For what it’s worth.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

You have no proof that the tea party movement is anti-intellectual.


It’s the most anti-intellectual political movement that the nation has ever seen. How about, for example, a “vote of approval” for George W Bush as the candidate that voters would most want to have a beer with?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

I think that Margaret Atwood was radical to some. In a literary genre dominated by men, Atwood could write a dystopian sci-fi tale as good as any of them. She demonstrated that there was room in science fiction for women… and that women could be good at it. This is a powerful and revolutionary idea if you look at the implications for how progressive ideas are propagated. Science fiction is our literary projection of the future… hopeful or otherwise. Why should only men define that?

I think Mary Shelley and Margaret Atwood are both incredibly successful feminists even if their goals were not specifically the empowerment of women. They were acting feminists.

Gloria Steinem was super popular in the 1970s and in many ways was women’s spokesperson for the sexual revolution. She was a no-bullshit critic of our cultural patriarchy and exposed sexism in the media. She was, in my opinion, hugely influential. Ms. magazine is still published and influential today… 40 years later. I don’t know what her goals were as a feminist agitator specifically, but in terms of leaving a positive and important legacy, she’s done that. Plus, she’s still alive and actively speaking out on women’s issues.

To compare feminism to Islamic terrorists, Ku Klux Klan, or Nazis is really silly. I don’t think I’ll dignify it with a response until you can make a stronger case.

Your depiction of feminism looks to me like a bunch of women spitefully destroying innocent men’s lives simply because they have the power to do so. Two important questions.

1. Do you really think that’s what feminism is?
2. Do you really think that’s what’s happening?

Extra credit: Do you think it’s odd to take an issue that is essentially beneficial to half of the world’s population and dismiss its ideas and practices because it wants to (for example) correct hundreds of years of political and social imbalance caused by gender discrimination? It’s the same viewpoint that many reactionary Confederates used in support of slavery; that if they were freed they would go on a murderous rampage.

A3908, the law that you cited, was a huge overreach. It basically would make it punishable to misrepresent yourself to seduce someone (for either gender). It was a dumb bill. I don’t think any rational people supported it. I disagree that support for the view was “commonplace in the feminist community.” The fact is that there are already laws to protect victims of fraud, and consensual sex is not legally considered a form of damage… so, no harm, no foul. And that’s how the bill died in committee.

More importantly, A3908 was about the definition of “rape.” There are some lawmakers who really don’t get it. They dismiss some sexual assaults as misunderstandings, or fear that there was consensus in the moment and regret later… and a resultant rape accusation as a result more from pride and anger than as a sincere reaction to a sexual assault.

Rape and sexual assault DOES need a lot of work. Americans are still struggling to define it. The boogey-man version is easy but the alcohol-version is trickier… it’s a challenge. Everyone agrees on that, at least.

I’m less concerned by the threat of fascism than I am the real impact of gender discrimination. You can call feminist leaders fascists if you like but that doesn’t make their messages and goals any less important.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Yes, Mafefe. ISIS, Nazis (neo or otherwise), and the Ku Klux Klan are considered radical groups.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

The point is, Mafefe (my dear), is that it all seems radical while it’s occurring and that the “organization” of it only emerges as a byproduct of its legacy.

Please try again next page.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

…there is of course a social element to this, but the psychological element behind that is that the male brain is typically more likely to be possessed of traits that incline the owner toward a leading role (though what these traits actually are is another question entirely, and may not be wholly or even marginally positive beyond the scope of leadership and societal pioneering, see Steve Jobs’ biography).

I don’t accept this, or I don’t understand it… probably both.

Men have almost always been governmental leaders and some have done great things and others have royally screwed things up. I don’t think it’s safe to say that on average men will do a better job at governing than women… or in military leadership… or in finance and business. These are domains held by men and I think there’s scant evidence that a woman would be (on average) less capable of doing the job.

EXCEPT for societal expectations. I believe that a woman in a high-ranking military role would be under harsher criticism than a man. That could be a factor in evaluating her leadership skills.

This introduces a more abstract question: Is the evaluation THE performance, or is the action the performance?

For example: If a woman achieves 80% of the goal and her male counterpart achieves 60% of his identical goals, and the man is judged by society to have accomplished MOST of what he was tasked with, while she is criticized for failing 1-out-of-5 times… is that the measure that we use when we’re writing history? Perhaps it is. Pity.

In the example, she has performed better but the perception of performance favors the man because people expect the man to perform better in that type of role.

…one of my problems with modern feminism is that its members (at least those primarily associated with feminism) are usually radicals…

I think it would be interesting to hear who you think are too radical. I think all feminists are radical, but in the awesome sense… but then again I don’t ever hear feminists say that they want to cut off men’s penises and stuff either. Maybe you’re hearing that, but I’m not.

Here are some interesting examples of feminism that were “radicals” in their day:

Heinrich Agrippa wrote a book claiming the moral superiority of women… in the 16th century. He was a radical and had a powerful legacy.

Pocahontas was an American Indian from the Virginia area that presented (for many) a new stereotype of the “noble savage” but also of an empowered female agent. She was a radical and had a powerful legacy.

Jane Gomeldon used her eloquent writing to reveal the pompousness and self-righteousness of her generation (the 18th-century). She was a radical and had a powerful legacy.

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. Radical.

Sojourner Truth was an abolitionist and a women’s rights activist, and a radical.

Jane Addams campaigned for women’s rights and organized some great groups. Totally radical.

Susan Anthony was a suffragette and is on a coin. She was a radical for her time.

Margaret Fuller was a hippie and a suffragette, and a radical.

Anna Kingsford was a feminist AND a radicalized environmentalist… in the late 1800s. That’s pretty radical.

Bessie Rischbieth advocated against the taking of aboriginal children to “civilize” them in Australia. Considered a radical.

Kate Sheppard was instrumental in earning women’s right to vote in New Zealand, where the practice was started… in the late 1800s. Radical.

Emily Howard Stowe was a doctor that advocated for more women in medical professions. Radical notion for the time.

Ida Wells was a feminist and campaigned heavily for civil rights and on an anti-lynching issue. Funny to think that lynching once required a radical response.

Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to run for president of the United States. Crazy radical.

Bella Abzug was a wildly popular feminist.

Maya Angelou was a poet, civil rights activist, and a feminist. And considered radical.

Margaret Atwood was a feminist science fiction writer known primarily for The Handmaid’s Tale. People still seem to think women writing science fiction is radical.

Jane Goodall was a feminist that hung around apes.

Margaret Sanger pushed for access to birth control. Radical.

Gloria Steinem was all about ending pornography. Radical notion.

Jessie Street was a feminist and pro-labor activist. She made things happen, and was a radical.

There are literally thousands and thousands of feminists and almost all of them are considered radical by their peers, or by those who are faced with their work.

So… when you say you have a problem with “radical feminists” you might say either “you have a problem with feminists” or that “you have a problem with radicals.” Personally, I consider being called “radical” a badge of honor… it means your ideas are uncomfortable.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

^on point.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

I appreciate a reasonable and cogent response, BC. Nailed that part. It’s organized, on-point, and articulate. Thank you for that.

Now I’m going to call out some stuff.

The cycle of social change is almost always chaotic and unrecognizable as it’s occurring. Social movements are big business (solar, water reclamation, and even GMO foodstuff), radical (Earth First, Earth Liberation Front), structural (Occupy), academic (Paolo Friere, Henry Giroux)… and encompass a wide, wide range of passions and focuses.

When I describe a movement’s issues becoming passé, I mean that those issues become compartmentalized over time. We come to understand that movement for its accomplishments, not its demands.

Women’s Suffrage is best understood as being a movement focused on voting, but that was hardly the sum of its goals. It wanted LOTS of things… and it was also a diverse, international effort with varying degrees of coordination across a whole spectrum of people and economic classes. Some areas pushed for some goals over others, while other areas focused on other things. It was probably a chaotic mess at the time.

Our generation’s movement looks ugly and impractical because we’re in the middle of it. Their accomplishments will (in retrospect) make neo-feminism look like a well-oiled machine.

The criticism of neo-feminism having too many goals is on par for every social movement. It’s the same charge leveled against Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Tea Party, Anarchists (re: World Trade Organization), Hippies Yippies and Beatniks, Arab Spring, and the Civil Rights Movement. They were ALL chaotic clusterfucks at the time.

Your “biological role” argument doesn’t explain the gender disparity illustrated above. Are women less biologically proficient at participating in government?

If the reason that women aren’t represented by our “representatives” in government is because they have been historically denied access to those positions, then that simply illustrates (quite clearly) that we have not achieved equality. That’s what this is all about… not the “intellectual acknowledgement” of equality but the “practice” of it.

To claim that the reason women aren’t represented fairly in government is because they don’t desire it is a fallacy. In fact, it’s kind of stupid. Of course women want jobs in government… but there is a societal expectation that men are better leaders. That’s institutionalized sexism, plain and simple. How do we fix it? Fuck if I know… but I recognize that it exists, and so should you. Because you’re obviously perceptive and thoughtful.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Here’s some of the names that often come up when talking about Black people being shot by police.

In the last 18 months…

Dontre Hamilton (31) April 2014
Shot 14 times by police in Milwaukee, MI. The police were responding to a call from an employee at a nearby Starbucks that Dontre was disturbing the peace. Dontre had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. When the officers arrived they noted that Dontre hadn’t been doing anything illegal. When the police officer tried to pat Dontre down, a struggle ensued. The police officer was not charged.

Eric Garner (43) July 2014
The New York police officer put Garner in an illegal and unsanctioned choke hold after citing Garner for illegally selling loose cigarettes. The officer was not charged.

John Crawford III (22) August 2014
Crawford was shot by a policemen in a Beavercreek, Ohio Walmart as he held a toy BB gun. The officers were not charged.

Michael Brown (18) August 2014
Brown was shot by Ferguson police after questioning them about a robbery. Accounts of the incident are varied. The officer involved was not charged.

Ezell Ford (25) August 2014
Ford was shot three times (once in the back) in Florence, CA. He was unarmed. No charges have been filed.

Dante Parker (36) August 2014
Parker died in police custody after being repeatedly stunned by a taser in Victorville, CA. No charges have been filed.

Tanisha Anderson (37) November 2014
Anderson died after having her head slammed into the ground by police officers, in Cleveland, OH. No charges have been filed.

Akai Gurley (28) November 2014
Gurley was shot while walking in New York with his girlfriend. He was unarmed. In this case the officer was charged with manslaughter, ngligent homicide, assault, and reckless endangerment.

Tamir Rice (12) November 2014
Rice was killed by Cleveland police after they mistook his toy gun for a real weapon. No charges have been filed.

Rumain Brisbon (34) December 2014
Brisbon was shot and killed by police when they believed he was armed. No charges were filed.

Jerame Reid (36) December 2014
Reid was killed by Bridgeton NJ police as he exited a car with his hands up. No charges have been filed.

Tony Robinson (19) March 2015
Robinson was killed by Madison, WI police after allegedly disrupting traffic. Reid was unarmed. No charges have been filed.

Phillip White (32) March 2015
White died in police custody in Vineland, NJ after being apprehended for behaving erratically. The exact cause of his death is yet unknown. No charges have been filed.

Eric Harris (44) April 2015
Harris was shot by a policeman that mistook his gun for a taser. The officer was charged with manslaughter.

Walter Scott (50) April 2015
Scott was shot in the back after being pulled over for a broken taillight. The police officer claimed Scott had taken his taser. Witnesses (with video) proved that the officer had lied and he was subsequently charged with murder.

Freddie Gray (25) April 2015
Gray died of a spinal cord injury incurred while in police custody in Baltimore, MD. Six police officers have been charged in Gray’s death, ruling it a homicide.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.


Here’s a picture of the United States surpreme court.

Here’s a picture of our Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The US Senate has 100 members. How many are women? Quick! The answer is 20.

If you look at some of the committees, where “real” governmental work happens, the disparity is even more apparent. The Rules and Administration Committee (for example) has 32 members and 2 of them are women.

My point is that we really DON’T have equality and equal representation of women. That’s what feminism is about… it’s more than empowerment. It’s also about just balancing things out. It’s not about representing women as victims and trying to depict men as privileged sociopaths.

Side note:
I think you’re doing the notion of “safe spaces” and incredible injustice by calling them infantile. If you look at what they are and how they function, you’ll see that they’re not there to protect anyone from offensive stuff. They’re there to offer support if people are uncomfortable with challenging ideas. It’s a “safe” place to unload and work through some of the bullshit we all encounter in our daily lives.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

I have some fundamental disagreements with a few of your claims, BC. Given the open nature of this forum, I’m just gonna throw them out there. (Everyone’s posts here are obviously fair game for critique.)

First, I challenge the claim that third-wave feminism is unnecessary or unfair.

First-wave feminism focused on some clear gender inequities in the area of civic engagement, (e.g., voting). This was controversial at the time. Today it seems passé.

Second-wave feminism focused on gender equality and empowerment issues, (e.g., sexual liberation and reproductive rights). This was controversial at the time but is becoming passé.

Neo-feminism (aka, third-wave feminism) lacks the clarity that comes with passing time and history so it’s harder to define in simple terms. It’s dominant messages will persevere and come to define exactly what its goals were, but it is focused on reinforcing gains made by previous efforts… namely sexual identity and reproductive rights, but also wage-equity and empowerment for non-traditional gender roles.

These issues will someday be passé. (That’s an important thing to remember.)

Neo-feminists as a whole are divided on some aspects of feminism, like pornography and “cartoon” depictions of women. Because these issues are unresolved, there are lots of diverse voices in the movement trying to be heard… and some of them are batshit crazy. This means that it’s easy to find examples that reinforce certain viewpoints.

For example, if one intuited that third-wavers wanted to castrate all men, it probably wouldn’t be too difficult to find some crazy feminist suggesting that very thing. However, that doesn’t mean that she (or he) is representative of the entire movement as a whole. That person may be just as marginalized within the modern feminist movement as they are by society in general. Yet, these kooks are often used as representational examples of the whole movement… and that’s both unfair and sloppy.


When you say that neo-feminism is “anti-egalitarian,” I’m not really sure what you mean. Are LGBT issues anti-egalitarian? Is reaffirming pro-choice anti-egalitarian? (I know you claim that you’ve already explained it… so I apologize for my laziness by not looking for it.) The wage-gap is an important but limited aspect of what I understand neo-feminism to be about; it’s more about marginalized identity.

In the US we’re celebrating the fact that two women just became Army Rangers, (an elite military group). It’s things like this that demonstrate how far we still have to go.

I’m not even going to touch “male rape.” That just seems like nonsense… like going into an NAACP meeting and demanding justice for reverse-discrimination.

Also, many modern animals function in packs led by a single male with largely female accompaniments, with outsider males surviving on a relatively low percentage of their own labour capacity when they don’t have to provide for children too.

Also, many modern animal packs function with the females of the group providing much more food than the males. (What does this prove?)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.


Also, this cute and (imo) accurate political cartoon.

Trump is the perfect candidate for the anti-intellectual Tea Party movement.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should sex offenders be given another chance?

I don’t understand your meta-analysis, James. Relevance?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

My theory: He’s a side-show act meant to distract base voters from the real skirmish happening between the more viable Republican candidates. This will allow the true front-runner a better window of peaking in approvals just as November hits. The big problem is that we’re going to get sick of hearing about Trump long before the Republicans are done having him entertain us.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

That’s a rad editorial, Karma. Thanks for posting it.

It is complex being a White person advocating for racial justice, and I find myself sometimes grappling with conflicting ideas like “white savior” stuff… but it shouldn’t be complex at all. It’s very simple. To varying degrees, people see injustice around them—and their perceptions may be influenced by the color of their skin, but the color of their skin doesn’t dictate their tolerance for racial injustices, perception of injustice, or passion for seeking justice. Those are individual qualities that can exist in anyone.