|
DeusExMachinima posted:Oh no, I'm not talking about Lewinsky and I don't think that has anything to do with Hillary. Although of course plenty of Republicans do make jokes at Hillary's expense about it. But there are other women who've come forward about Bill being pushy or creepy or outright accusing him of rape and we know how rare it is for those accusations to be false. It's not unreasonable to expect Trump's close associates, including his campaign manager who's a woman, to disentangle themselves from him and openly denounce him for what he said and admitted to doing. Just being silent isn't enough. The same is to be expected of anyone else on the public stage. Trump's employees are in a different category than his wife or daughter. I find it hard to judge a woman married to a predatory man, as I at least have no idea what being in such a position does to somebody. Maybe she never believed it. Maybe she loved him so much that she couldn't bring herself to turn on him. Maybe he abused her. I find it hard to ask these questions of people like Camille Cosby too, as they require knowledge of events and psychology that we don't have.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I find it hard to judge a woman married to a predatory man, as I at least have no idea what being in such a position does to somebody. Maybe she never believed it. Maybe she loved him so much that she couldn't bring herself to turn on him. Maybe he abused her. I find it hard to ask these questions of people like Camille Cosby too, as they require knowledge of events and psychology that we don't have. I strongly suspect that what Hillary did was Machiavellian and not out of ignorance. After all, she and her husband were incredibly successful politicians, and it is really hard to get to where they were without being smart and ruthless. But you are right, I guess I don't really know what she was thinking when she went on the offensive for her husband, and contrary to a popular view of morality in feminism, I do believe that intent does matter when evaluating the morality of people's actions. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
I remember this vox piece that sure was something.quote:I want to be very clear here. I'm not saying that anyone who opposed Clinton was sexist. Nor am I saying Clinton should have won. What I'm saying is that presidential campaigns are built to showcase the stereotypically male trait of standing in front of a room speaking confidently - and in ways that are pretty deep, that's what we expect out of our presidential candidates. Campaigns built on charismatic oration feel legitimate in a way that campaigns built on deep relationships do not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Oh no, I'm not talking about Lewinsky and I don't think that has anything to do with Hillary. Although of course plenty of Republicans do make jokes at Hillary's expense about it. But there are other women who've come forward about Bill being pushy or creepy or outright accusing him of rape and we know how rare it is for those accusations to be false. It's not unreasonable to expect Trump's close associates, including his campaign manager who's a woman, to disentangle themselves from him and openly denounce him for what he said and admitted to doing. Just being silent isn't enough. The same is to be expected of anyone else on the public stage. The sad thing is that both Trump and Bill Clinton have much the same attitude towards women and are accused of much the same abuses. Just shows how common it is in politics. I've never heard the slightest rumor that Obama does this sort of thing, though, which is (sadly) a great credit to him (although who knows what we will find out years later.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
This when someone posts the Southpark gif of Barrack and Michelle giving each other the side eyes from the money and power ep?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Are we really going to pretend the only way to see Hillary as being complicit in what Bill did to multiple women is to blame her because she's his wife? Come on. It's more about the attacks she made at his accusers. Stuff like the trailer park trash comment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:It's more about the attacks she made at his accusers. Stuff like the trailer park trash comment. Can you substantiate that? Just curious, because I googled that and got a bunch of right wing propaganda, so I'm curious if that actually happened, cause I can't find it-part of that might be because it was old?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Can you substantiate that? Just curious, because I googled that and got a bunch of right wing propaganda, so I'm curious if that actually happened, cause I can't find it-part of that might be because it was old? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
this is an almost perfect rorschach test for what your preconceived notions of clinton are
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:this is an almost perfect rorschach test for what your preconceived notions of clinton are What is the interpretation of the events of the article that is charitable to Hillary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What is the interpretation of the events of the article that is charitable to Hillary? her involvement in smearing bill's various mistresses consists of almost entirely of knowing the people who did so, all of whom deny her involvement without any evidence to gainsay their denials i'm a huge coward who has no particular interest in the legacy of the clintons. i just clearly see how this article lends itself equally well to "all of the connections between hillary and smearing bill's mistresses are circumstantial" as it does to "goddamn that is a lot of circumstantial evidence linking hillary to smearing bill's mistresses."
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Can you substantiate that? Just curious, because I googled that and got a bunch of right wing propaganda, so I'm curious if that actually happened, cause I can't find it-part of that might be because it was old? Yeah, it was a hell of a while ago. My search results are getting fowled up by right wing news too but I remember when I first heard right wingers throwing it around, I was actually able to trace it to a fairly credible source. I did find it mentioned here but it's uncited and an opinion piece, so take it for what it's worth. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/03/and_speaking_of_perfect_unions_.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/818294178752892928 https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/818295113306832897 Uh, opinions? This person I know has spouted a lot of dumbass opinions, but I supposed that this conjecture could serve as discussion material on this thread. Fututor Magnus fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/818294178752892928 I don't think this conjecture makes sense because housewives aren't paid for doing any of that so you're not getting financially supported for labor, you are getting what your partner decides is OK for you to have or what you can negotiate out of them. While there are cultural situations where it's expected that women will control the house finances, these are still fragile situations where men have ways to avoid the restrictions involved but women have very limited ways out. Thus, leaving aside that the author is a fascist, the conjecture doesn't address power relations at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/818294178752892928 "Here's some ridiculous bullshit from a loving idiot, discuss"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/818294178752892928 Good thing that feminism means that women can choose to be housewives if they want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/818294178752892928 I mean, I think this is also a dumbass opinion. I think clearly given the paradigm of traditional marriage as examined in detail in some of the books in the op, and the discussion of housework that went very far south very quick, that to claim that traditional marriage is somehow the solution is ill-thought out. How exactly does a 'traditional marriage' help recoup and balance the costs that a woman is owed for housework and so-called emotional labor? Making a woman beholden to her partner through marriage for financial support strikes me as being dumb. Moreover, I think the notion that feminism has robbed being a housewife of 'prestige' is specious. It is the patriarchy that deems housewives' choices and time as meaningless. In light of how much we've been through the politics of tedium, I just very fervently disagree with that. I could be wrong though! It's just that this strikes me as ill-thought out. e: Brainiac Five posted:I don't think this conjecture makes sense because housewives aren't paid for doing any of that so you're not getting financially supported for labor, you are getting what your partner decides is OK for you to have or what you can negotiate out of them. While there are cultural situations where it's expected that women will control the house finances, these are still fragile situations where men have ways to avoid the restrictions involved but women have very limited ways out. Thus, leaving aside that the author is a fascist, the conjecture doesn't address power relations at all. A bit of the ol' Kinder, Küche, Kirche, eh? stone cold fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Person has kind of weird opinion, not much more than that
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Also pretty sure that it was capitalism that made anything other than wage labor untenable for both men and women, not that housewifery as it exists now isn't being reduced to literal servitude at the mercy of a partner who has total control of what happens to you. Also pretty sure that the second wave wasn't attaching wage values to housework so that housewives would receive a literal salary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
I would say that "housewives" are largely not a thing anymore. How many households can even afford to have one person stay home to do housework and take care of the kids? I would love to be a housewife, but finances make that impossible. The best I could hope for would be to earn enough freelancing that I could work from home to care for my future children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Nessa posted:How many households can even afford to have one person stay home to do housework and take care of the kids? Apparently in 2012 Gallop thought it was 14% of US women. http://www.gallup.com/poll/153995/stay-home-moms-lean-independent-lower-income.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Apparently in 2012 Gallop thought it was 14% of US women. quote:A similar pattern is seen by income, contradicting any possible assumption that stay-at-home moms are largely privileged. Low-income mothers are far less likely to be employed than are upper-income mothers (45% vs. 77%), a finding that is repeated with fathers This was what surprised me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
With the cost of child care, I expect with a family, community, or state safety net it can be a better strategy to bail from the workforce at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Nessa posted:I would say that "housewives" are largely not a thing anymore. I wouldn't mind being a STAHM for only because I don't like going to work, but I think that's a majority of people anyway and it's a 'grass is greener' type thing because I'm sure doing the necessary gets old fast. I'd love if my husband could be the one who stays home, he loves to clean and is a great cook. It'd sure be nice to come home and not have to worry about that stuff. I had even entertained the idea of taking time away from work or even just working a job with less hours until our baby that's due in April is in school. Daycare as it stands, because of our income will be about 25K a year. So do I want to pay someone else that much to raise my kid for me? Or do I want to make less and be more present? It all takes me back to this great thing o saw about how "wonder dads" online are like "wow! This guy does his daughters hair!! What a guy!" Where as "wonder moms" are the women who balance a career, take care of the home, the child rearing, drive kids to extra curriculars, pack magazine-worthy bento box lunches and more. I would have rolled my eyes if that wasn't exactly the case for several professional women I know. Society doesn't want to admit the value of a stay at home parent, especially since so much of it is still considered traditionally feminine work, but they sure as poo poo want it done. 54 40 or fuck fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
54 40 or gently caress posted:I wouldn't mind being a STAHM for only because I don't like going to work, but I think that's a majority of people anyway and it's a 'grass is greener' type thing because I'm sure doing the necessary gets old fast. I feel the same way. My dad was the stay at home parent when I was little. He had a home business fixing old radios, so I would tag along and spent much of my early childhood hanging out in flea markets, auction houses and pawn shops. He read books to me and made up adventure stories to tell me and we would watch a lot of movies together. I can't help but feel that that time together shaped me as a person. The first 5 years of life is pretty crucial in a child's development. After my dad left, those early years would be the best memories I would have of my dad. I still see him from time to time, but I've realized he's kind of a nut job and we don't get along as well as we used to. Though my dad didn't do my hair because my hair was kept quite short when I was little. I guess he wasn't a "Wonder Dad". I just feel there's a lot of expectations placed on me to have a full time job, and do the vast majority of the housework and child rearing. I'm worried I'll crash and burn like my mom did. After my dad left us, she had to raise two kids on her own and work full time. Housework didn't get done and I was soon growing up in a hoarder house as a latchkey kid, babysitting my little brother. I was not the best parent to my little brother. He spent some time in day care, but had issues with biting other children and he spent some time with a private babysitter who threatened to call CPS on my mom because my brother would sometimes zone out for a minute and she was sure this was a symptom of abuse and not something medical. I want to be able to spend a lot of time with my future child and see them develop as a person, but I don't think being a stay at home mom is an option for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
stone cold posted:This was what surprised me. As a bunch of people have pointed out. The cost of full time child care is very high. If working only pays for the child care to allow one to work, it's pretty easy to choose to just not work. Sometimes being able to work is the privileged choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Our next AG, everybodyquote:In November 2016, Troy Newman, the longtime head of Operation Rescue, endorsed Sessions, saying he “could not be happier” about the appointment. “I have worked on projects with Sen. Sessions in the past and know him to be an experienced prosecutor and a principled pro-life advocate with a reputation for honesty,” Newman added. A ringing endorsement from a group that actively engages in the violent harassment of abortion doctors. So how long til we lose the right to choose? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Our next AG, everybody Kind of dependent on RBG, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
So that whole bit about "separation of church and state" is just pretty much meaningless eh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Kind of dependent on RBG, isn't it? Well.... quote:Permitting plaintiff Kimberly Stinnett to pursue civil action on behalf of a six-week-old embryo certainly seems like a dangerous step towards establishing fetal personhood rights that will interfere with a pregnant person’s privacy right. quote:Alabama legislators, with an assist from an activist judiciary, are intent on expanding fetal rights. They are itching to declare that as a matter of law, a fetus is a person; that life begins at conception; and that, therefore, fetal people should have the same constitutional rights as living, breathing people do. One way to do that, they hope, is to reject the viability standard in wrongful death cases, and perhaps lead to a reversal of Roe v. Wade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
But gently caress you when you're born !
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
I've heard logic sorta like this, that abortion violates fetus' 14th Amendment rights. Of course private persons can discriminate against you in all sorts of ways that the government can't so it's never gone anywhere. So I'm not sure if it's new or more likely to go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:41
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I've heard logic sorta like this, that abortion violates fetus' 14th Amendment rights. Of course private persons can discriminate against you in all sorts of ways that the government can't so it's never gone anywhere. So I'm not sure if it's new or more likely to go anywhere. Well this particular case is new, and what really matters here is trying to build up legal precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
i look forward to the future where my children will sue me got 8-9 months or so of false imprisonment, claiming inhospitable conditions due to the spontaneous abortions that I'm happened/will happen in over a third of pregnancies! maybe i can countersue with damages? stealing nutrients from my blood and altering its chemistry? not paying rent? can i make the fetus pay for birthing costs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
You could probably sue for reimbursement of medical costs, and I'm sure there's a case to be made that a c-section would be grounds for an ABH charge
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:i look forward to the future where my children will sue me got 8-9 months or so of false imprisonment, claiming inhospitable conditions due to the spontaneous abortions that I'm happened/will happen in over a third of pregnancies! Okay. So let's say a child is born into terrible poverty. Horrible life. Parents admit they would have terminated the pregnancy but weren't allowed. Can't this theoretical child sue the government? I mean hey, slippery slope and all. "Mrs.X didn't ask to be born, she didn't want to be born but had no agency to defend the right to not be born!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
54 40 or gently caress posted:Okay. So let's say a child is born into terrible poverty. Horrible life. Parents admit they would have terminated the pregnancy but weren't allowed. Can't this theoretical child sue the government? the fight of the 21st century is not anti-facism, anti-racism or anti-sexism, but rather anti-natalism
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
I'd like to share with all of y'all a feminist who I feel represents a segment of the population we don't often hear from in American feminism: Celine Parreñas Shimizu. Professor Shimizu is probably best known for her books, Straitjacket Sexualities: Unbinding Asian American Manhoods in the Movies, The Hypersexuality of Race: Performing Asian/ American Women on Screen and Scene, and her films, Mahal Means Love and Expensive, Her Uprooting Plants Her, Super Flip, The Fact of Asian Women, and Birthright. Her family, Pinoy refugees, settled in Boston, and as you might've guessed from the titles, her focus is on sexuality and Asian-American media portrayals. From The Hypersexuality of Race: Professor Shimizu posted:The fear of sexual perversity, pleasure, and badness can choke the voicing of complex experiences of sexuality and curb the beauty emergent from the chronicles of our sexual histories and the survival of sexual subjection. Sexuality-thrilling, compelling, and mysterious-organizes my expression as a film and performance scholar and producer. The voices and visions of Asian American women performers, writers, and critics representing themselves as hypersexual beings- as overdetermined by sex and speaking through sex-show that I am not alone in my obsession with the bottomless pit of wonder that is sexuality. They insist upon the ambiguity and ultimate unknowability of race, sexuality, and represenation, especially in reinscribing the perverse sexuality traditionally ascribed to Asian/American women, and they do so using tremendously beautiful and innovative forms. From an interview in Hyphen Magazine quote:In 1931, there was a Filipina woman who was accused of infidelity and stealing money from her husband. She was then kidnapped, gagged, beat up, and buried alive,” says Parreñas-Shimizu. “You have to frame your subject in a certain way -- claiming a voice, moving out of invisibility, telling the story of your people. But what if the story involves one like mine? Where there’s criminal behavior on the part of the very people you’re supposed to represent positively?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmSqOnR8ucE I find her discussion of the evolution of the Asian experience in stag, and later porn films, fascinating, particularly on the decay and lessening of classic "Asian accoutrements," eg. the shoji screen, to having Asian women become explicitly coded as domestic partners via wedding rings, despite the lack of Asian performers and having white women in yellow face. I also really enjoy her discussion on the "in-betweeness" needed when discussing the agency of porn actresses, and that we need to listen to what these women are saying between the spaces of structure and agency when we diagnose the problems with representation in this kind of film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
It looks like Celine Shimizu is my homework for tonight because that is some fascinating and important work. But until I've read her I'd like to about the anti-human trafficking/prostitution campaign the Houston P.D. is waging in anticipation of the upcoming superbowl (and the anticipated rise in trafficking victims due to the increase in visitors to the city). I don't trust it. The police chief got on TV to announce the campaign which, as far as I can tell, is just an old-fashioned vice sting. They did say they were working with trafficking victim organizations to reserve beds, but beyond that they didn't address anything that seemed targeted at helping victims. Who is getting these beds, and who is just going to jail? The heart of my problem is that they conflate sex trafficking with prostitution. This doesn't help anyone. It obfuscates the problem while turning sex trafficking into a buzzword that is used to paper over the same old anti-sex worker policies. How does it help anyone to deliberately blur the distinction between coerced victims and women who choose to work in the sex business? Doesn't it cheapen and damage the very concept of sex trafficking to use it in what is pretty clearly an antiprostituion vice bust? It's telling that this operation is supposedly against "human trafficking," which includes sex trafficking and labor trafficking, yet the police chief ends it by saying "For the johns," Acevedo said, "We're putting you on notice today... When we arrest you, we will expose you for the sick person that you are." Because sending the press photos of arrested johns is going to keep enslaved women safe  .I'm biased, but it's kind of disgusting to see the police use something as serious as human trafficking as wallpaper for what is pretty clearly an operation to protect the city's image while the tourists are in town.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
stone cold posted:I'd like to share with all of y'all a feminist who I feel represents a segment of the population we don't often hear from in American feminism: Celine Parreñas Shimizu. Sharkie posted:It looks like Celine Shimizu is my homework for tonight because that is some fascinating and important work. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 18:58
|
|