Senate Let's Talk: Feminism

Did I misunderstand the question? I felt it was a direct and, for me, pretty fair answer to the question. I said:

It's easy to see why the media loves to belittle conservative women. And I understand their logic.

Their built in left-wing bias sees abortion, for example, as a women's issue. While right-wingers see it as a right to life issue. So when a woman takes that stance...that life begins at conception and has a right to exist, it comes off as incredibly anti-woman.

So the media pounces, often unaware of their own biases, and the "women's groups" respond with silence.

The quotes are because they aren't actually "women's groups," but rather leftist groups defending an ideology and a liberal agenda as opposed to actually standing up for women who are belittled based on their gender. In my point of view, of course.

And let's look at the issue of guns. The left (echoed by any and all "women's groups" coincidentally enough) sees guns as a safety issue. The right sees it as a self-defense issue. And, like I said, I don't understand why any and all "women's groups" wouldn't advocate for guns because they are the great equalizer.

It literally strips men of their inherent physical advantage of being male. It levels the playing field is a very real way, as opposed to the pretend way of using failed laws like orders of protection and our flawed court system.

I don't know what could be more feminists than to have that point of view.

 

Didn't you ask my opinion about why conservative women are vilified by the media?

 

You're right, I'm talking about women being attacked based on their femininity. Like Trump's daughter was called a ghoul.

 

I mean, I don't know the context, and attacking any woman based on her looks is wrong.

But if we're talking about her actions, they are certainly ghoulish. She enables a megalomaniac who is both racist and incredibly sexist.

 

So your example of a woman being attacked for their femininity is based upon one **** paper attacking Ivanka for nothing to do with her femininity?

 

If he was bullied, I can't find any details. The school denies the claim, and the father came across as though he was reaching for excuses. Some form of denial, maybe.

 

Exactly. It's not a tragedy when a girl doesn't like a boy and rejects him. It's just life, because no one is obligated to like anyone else back, even if that person is nice. Especially not if that person is a disturbed creep.

It IS a tragedy when said disturbed boy then kills the girl and others.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/ireland-votes-by-landslide-to-legalise-abortion

I'm delighted that Ireland overwhelmingly voted to overturn their eighth amendment, which severely limited abortion. I only wish that American women and women of other countries could vote to further abortion rights. While abortion remains legal, it is increasingly becoming more restricted in certain areas. Women's healthcare is often too expensive, and that needs to change, as well.

 

And just as a little addendum, I'm glad that Ireland voted to legalize abortion. It was often too expensive for women to travel outside of the country just to do that, especially during pregnancy. Not to mention the other expenses involved. I mean, sometimes people aren't ready to have kids, and sometimes people are harmed in horrible ways. Abortion should be an option for every individual, regardless of circumstance.

 

The article would be fine except it implicitly equates stay-at-home mothers with white supremacists. How responsible.

The "seduction community" or Poo'ahs tell the socially awkward or unattractive men that there's hope to sleep with the hot babe. Many times it works! They've worked it down to a science. Incels, however, are chronic complainers.

@anakinfansince1983

https://archive.org/details/wayweneverweream00coon

Spoiler

This myth-shattering examination of two centuries of American family life banishes the misconceptions about the past that cloud current debate about "family values." "Leave It to Beaver" was not a documentary, Stephanie Coontz points out; neither the 1950s nor any other moment from our past presents workable models of how to conduct our personal lives today. Without minimizing the serious new problems in American families, Coontz warns that a consoling nostalgia for a largely mythical past of "traditional values" is a trap that can only cripple our capacity to solve today's problems. From "a man's home was his castle" to "traditional families never asked for a handout," this provocative book explodes cherished illusions about the past. Organized around a series of myths and half-truths that burden modern families, the book sheds new light on such contemporary concerns as parenting, privacy, love, the division of labor along gender lines, the black family, feminism, and sexual practice. Fascinating facts abound: In the nineteenth century, the age of sexual consent in some states was nine or ten, and alcoholism and drug abuse were more rampant than today . . . Teenage childbearing peaked in the fabulous family-oriented 1950s . . . Marriages in pioneer days lasted a shorter time than they do now. Placing current family dilemmas in the context of far-reaching economic, political, and demographic changes, The Way We Never Were shows that people have not suddenly and inexplicably "gone bad" and points to ways that we can help families do better. Seeing our own family pains as part of a larger social predicament means that we can stop the cycle of guilt or blame and face the real issues constructively, Coontz writes. The historical evidence reveals that families have always been in flux and often in crisis, and that families have been most successful wherever they have built meaningful networks beyond their own boundaries

Thoughts?

 

This could go in the US Politics thread too, but here looks the best fit:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-judge-in-stanford-campus-sexual-assault-case

"The California judge in the Stanford sexual assault case has been recalled from office by local voters, an extremely rare outcome in the US court system and a major victory for activists who waged a two-year campaign against the official.

Judge Aaron Persky faced international scrutiny in June of 2016 after he sentenced the ex-Stanford University student Brock Turner to six months in jail. Turner, whose name became synonymous with campus sexual assault across America, had been convicted of three felonies for assaulting an unconscious woman outside of a fraternity party on the elite campus in northern California.

The law prescribed a minimum of two years in state prison for Turner’s offenses, but Persky ordered more limited jail time and probation, which resulted in the then 20-year-old being released after three months."

 

So if someone says that Ivanka looks like she just rolled off the assembly line of a Japanese sex robot factoty, does that makes them a bad person?

Asking for a friend.

 

Maybe. There are a lot of good reasons to criticize her without taking jabs at her appearance.

Besides, her father has plenty to say about her appearance if you hadn't noticed.

 

In Donald Trump's case I think it's because he's in awe that something so pretty could come from someone so ugly (himself). He's also obsessed with genes. So, her being so attractive means his genes are good. Therefore he's got the best genes. Also I'm pretty sure he'd really like to have sex with her but there's some taboos even he knows society won't let him get away with. If Ivanka had come out with a hunchback or harelip I very much doubt you'd hear about how attractive she is. SAD!

 

One that needs to have a talking to, at least.

 

My "friend's" point being that her looks are not so much the result of his genes as his money.

 

Weird. I'd say it'd have more to do with her mother than him. In either case, it is pretty crass to use her looks or anyone else's as a reason to hate someone. The fact that she profits off of screwing this country is enough to make me wish for her to suffer a horrible fate.