Process, Ethics, and Justice: An Inauspicious Note Regarding the Politics of Rape Culture

As you ignore other informed opinions, along with the information they are based on.

Your opinions are uninformed, and you aren't thinking.

Or piracy and fraud and farmland degradation and military invasion - likewise profitable, for a while, for some, throughout human history.

Besides, you aren't thinking: Had the cotton plantations refused to "employ" black people, had the sweatshops refused to employ women, their profits would have been far lower if existent at all. You're talking about businessmen boycotting assets and investments and critical skill sets out of sheer inability to employ them - not the brightest monkeys in the trees, eh?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I ignore biased opinions, not the information mind you, present the information.

No you are not thinking: you just repeated exactly what I said! For the individual businesses they were profitable, for the long run and society they were not. Businesses don't give a fuck about society though.

Slaves were not "employed" this is not an apt comparison. Once again slavery was bad over the long term for society, having a labor force that was unpaid and whipped to work, worked very well for individual buisnesses, until it became technologically obsolete, economically in-viable and politically unsustainable. Likewise the effects of #metoo could mean millions of women not hired or promoted/demoted or segregated to the near term profit of businesses (who don't give a fuck about society) but to the detriment of society and to the long term detriment of all.

Once again if they have a male counterpart candidate that will do the same work just as well, why would the company notice any difference? You completely ignored that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You present nothing but uninformed opinions, yourself.
You ignore informed opinions, not biased ones - without information, you cannot evaluate bias in the first place.

Slaves were employed, just as draft horses were. They were not boycotted. Had they been boycotted, profits would have been lower.

Businessmen who boycott available assets and investments and valuable skill sets because they don't know how to employ them are unlikely to profit thereby. That kind of incompetence normally injures a corporation.

It probably wouldn't - incompetence prevents the recognition of itself, and it's almost impossible to see clearly the absence of a valuable employee who was never there anyway.
It's competitors, who are hiring from a labor pool twice as large and significantly more skilled on average, are more likely to notice the differences. Likewise its customers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well that is your biased opinion.

Neither slaves or draft horses were employed.

Once again if they will be hiring available assets and investments and value skill sets, I just of that pool of available candidates, more of the women will get rejected.

Bingo!

Yeah if only the free market was as magical as Adam Smith claimed. How many millennial did slavery go on before someone figured out they could make more EMPLOYING the slaves and them buy and sell stuff in a free market? Likewise if almost all companies silently downgrade the employment of women, who is going to be the competitor with the bright idea of hiring egalitarianly? Tiny little mom and pop with its superior values store verse walmart? Oh let me guess and all female company?

 

An example of an article that degrades leftism by attacking men in general:
https://archive.is/ZKvIN

Also it was writen by a male feminist, so you know he talking about his own personal rapey feelings there.

And now for a youtube video review of that article:


So here we have an example of rapeculture: Man are inherently brutal and rapey.

 

Dictionary time.

And that incompetence will injure the businesses involved. So?

Now you are contradicting yourself.
Slavery came and went many times in many places, and is a profitable feature of some economies today. Slavery is what you get when businessmen do not boycott slaves.

No free market is implied or necessary. Businessmen have rivals, enemies, and competitors in all economic setups.

The smarter, more competent, and very quickly the more profitable one. Bigger talent pool and no competition for it - done and done.
Or more likely - because it's unlikely that "almost all companies" are run by utter fools and patronized by total suckers - :

 

#rapeculture | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Via Politico↱:

Not long before a deluge of sexual harassment claims engulfed Capitol Hill, congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump quietly repealed safeguards to protect hundreds of thousands of American workers from such harassment.

Their target was an August 2016 regulation issued by the Obama Labor Department that required businesses to disclose certain labor violations—including sexual harassment—whenever they bid on large federal contracts.

The vote last year is especially relevant now that Congress, under immense public pressure, is weighing legislation to outlaw the very same secrecy agreements that it voted to keep legal less than a year ago.

The regulation in question was one of 14 reversed by congressional resolutions that Trump signed into law last year as part of his much-touted war against “job-killing regulations.” Besides requiring disclosure, the rule forbade the biggest federal contractors from forcing workers to take their grievances to arbitration, where employees are likelier to lose, than in the courts; in addition, the private proceedings are typically kept secret.

Mandatory arbitration clauses played a key role in keeping secret the sexual harassment settlements that piled up over decades at Fox News and elsewhere. Gretchen Carlson, who in 2016 settled a sexual harassment complaint against the late Fox News chairman Roger Ailes for a reported $20 million, has made the elimination of mandatory arbitration clauses the centerpiece of a campaign against sexual harassment.​

So, how about a show of hands: Who really needs this one explained? That is to say, ooh, Republicans! yeah, we know. Indeed, this is precisely the kind of thing conservatives vote for. Still, though, sometimes people pretend the world is as simple as an if/then, but in order to accept the pretense we must ignore common and well-recognized complications. And either we believe such pretenses and thus accept a person is so poorly informed, or we recognize their simplicity for the snowflake-delicate calculation it is; they need the simplicity because, one way or another, the complications are just too complicated for them. And when we encounter this phenomenon, well, right, the description is not exactly positive, is it? Let this speak to the merit of pretending to believe the loudly passionate are somehow so credibly and credulously ignorant.

Meanwhile, for the rest, a question remains regarding the point of August, 2016. Yes, it took that long in the first place, and this fact ought to bear some significance.
____________________

Notes:

Kullgren, Ian. "The sexual harassment vote the GOP would like to forget". Politico. 2 January 2017. Politico.com. 3 January 2017. http://politi.co/2CCdMFl

 

Yeah they believe 2+2=4 as well. The core of their ideology is what is important.

A return to focus on economic injustice would, and issues that interest more then your clique.

No that is projection on your part. You see something you don't like, you declare it 'rightwing' then dismiss it, that kind of mindset is how the alt-right grew until it elect a fucking pig boar as president, and it will keep growing until people like you can switch from ostracizing to evangelizing.

Projection, the article does not do that, he specifically says be believes women are stronger then that, but the perception brought on by the #metoo hystera damages that belief. He is not blaming women, he is blaming the 'movement'.

First of all who are murder more in USA, men or women? My argument to all this is if a women is threatened with rape (or murder) they should immediately GO TO THE POLICE! Airing it on social media years later, when clearly not murdered or raped, and conflating claims of some guy saying you look good or "good morning", with rape, makes women look weak.

How?

Bullshit, for example in here : https://www.bustle.com/p/terry-crew...is-straightforward-so-important-video-7378368

That last line has Crews raising his voice to make the point that male support is necessary to changing the culture, but if there's going to be any real change, men have to examine their own behavior. "It's not that hard," he said, addressing his fellow men. "Just if you're making anyone uncomfortable in any way — man, woman, child — stop. You're already over the line."

Me saying "don't do that" or "read the MSDS, that is a powerful latent teratogen and it melts nitrile, you better not touch that without the heavy rubber gloves!" also make people uncomfortable, for good reason. Just my existence as a slanky beard brownish bald man makes people uncomfortable. A statement like that is so open ended it is impossible to follow, oh and it is clearly aim at all men. Not enough for you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is a head editor of huffington post there, no amount of claiming that is 'right wing propaganda' or 'fake news' will change the fact of that. Oh you can claim she was just joking, sort of like how the trumptards claim trump was just joking about grabbing pussy. R

Nope the memo did not say that:

I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

So no you are clearly lying, you are lying, you lie about it conclusion, you lie about the author and you lie about it being "right wing propaganda" and you clearly even lied about reading it..

Let review another unequal distribution in the population, Jews: Jews are disproportionately representative in media, banking and science and engineering per their population. Why do you think that is? The alt-right thinks it is because jews are inherently conniving and money grubbing and nepotist, that Jews secretly organize world dominating plans over centuries... but I would like to ask what is your theory for why Jews are disproportionately representative in media, banking and science and engineering per their population?

Anyways back to women: women make up 15-30% of STEM engineers, your theory for why this is is sexism and your solution is sexist programs that provide women special help and privileges. First of all I would say how noble, so are you going to promote programs for the sexism that must be why there are so few male elementary teachers now? Or how about promoting more women in sewage and toxic waste cleaning? Heck "Boiler makers" are 99% male: why not promote women to weld high pressure steam systems as well?

My counter theory is that women, on average, in developed countries CHOOSE to not be engineers, and yes those choices may be largely cultural, which I believe can be changed and is in fact changing, though I do not believe I can or should try to change that for it would require me to impose my belief on what is best for someone onto them. And yes, on average, it is also biological, which I believe can also be changed, nature is not immutable, nor good. If women are more prone to give up their careers for families well that is their choice, I advocate house husbands, or better yet just don't have children, pump your maternal instinct into pets instead, we do not need more humans, and if you are one of many women that don't want to have families good for you. Sure would I like better maternity leave, more services for working mothers, and for fathers as well because, equality, but that can't happen if republicans rule the government. So goal number one is make sure liberals control the government and keeping it that way, and that can't happen if liberals are pushing theories like sexism is everywhere, due process must be thrown out for warlock hunts, and ostracizing much of the electorate.

Now just so you are not confused: there are women engineers, I work the them, they are good engineers (well some are not good, but so are some male engineers) the point is to treat each INDIVIDUALLY as such with his or her own personal skills and weaknesses, not to assume of them and their personality, to not assume that if they are female they must be weak minded or under constant fear of sexual attack as sexist like you want me to believe.

Why do you lie? Why are you pushing this red herring?

Well I did look into the google leaks, but the ones I found were all male feminist flipping their shit. So maybe, but once again your conflating events.

Let me get this straight, an ex-google employee advised that women would probably be staying home, where did she says this? Did it get a lot of re-tweets? Do you understand the concept of perception? You can call it right wing propaganda but anyone that watched the issue unfold on twater could make that conclusion.

You are creating a red haring, you are ignoring the issue of the consequences of your ideology that I present and diverting the issue completely.

 

Oh do cite it.

Not directly, so they will keep doing what they do.

Ok you need to define how businessman boycott slaves? What do you think businessmen could make money again if they had slaves picking cotton instead of machines?

Yeah and those rivals, enemies and competitors are also human and think much the same.

I get your meaning: they will pay them less to, very profitable.

I must ask: do you think women are better qualified for jobs then men?[/quote][/quote]

 

They won't keep on running a business if they can't hire any better than that. They won't have one.

No I don't, I just need to remind you that you are talking about businessmen who admit they are incapable of hiring skilled and productive women as if that kind of incompetence would benefit their bottom line.

If they aren't also just as incompetent and incapable, in exactly the same way, they're going to eat his lunch.

The women a competent businessman wants to hire, compared to the men he doesn't? of course.

 

It's part of this weird thing people do sometimes trying to show how cool bigotry is supposed to be. The (cough!) "whinging" American "self-hating bigot" who purports to be a "brown Jew" because he's taking time out to insult someone else as a "brown buffalo" does not exactly present the most reliable testament we have ever borne witness to.

Notice how lazy the troll job is, by section:

• Antisemitism
• Fallacy
• Ignorance of own arguments
• Trigger fantasy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Lazy fallacy
• Nonsensical make-believe fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Evasion and demand
• Fallacious scold
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Fallacy
• Ignorance of own argument
• Fallacious fantasy
• Fallacy
• Purported ignorance defying participation​

I think. I might have lost track in that second-half string of neener-blah-thbpbpt fallacies.

We might notice how at no time during this or any other of his posts does he actually put any real effort into making any real argument. The whole point is that he isn't informed enough to engage the dispute according to what he posts, so, like many who aren't up to the tasks they set before themselves, he simply provokes and waits and responds. We're down to neo-Nazi conspiracism↑ in nonsensical arguments whose only apparent purposes are the recycling of antisemtic tropes and invoking genocide; it's all about keywording.

The thing about the make-believe stereotype he plays is that he does it so poorly.

Hey, remember that one thread when a dude walks in and says, essentially, "Duhhhrrrrr ... what's rape culture? I looked it up online but could only find YouTubers telling me how evil feminism is." And we were actually supposed to believe that sleazy bullshit, or, at the very least, take it seriously? At some point, I find myself wondering about the people who can't tell the difference, because at no point did handing that faction anything more substantial have any useful effect, and to the one, as stupid as it sometimes seems, people can certainly dismiss interpretive priority as a matter of politics, but, to the other, the proposition that one apparently cannot find for themselves primary and secondary sources, but only distal quasi-meta-analytical political stylistics undertaken in pursuit of fame, is simply not believable; at some point, if I want to know what's in the U.S. Constitution, I read the Constitution; if I want to know what Judith Butler said, I read what Judith Butler said. My imagination fails: What is this world in which I might turn to a search engine and be unable to find any relevant information more proximal than political opposition?

In this thread we have a wonderful preface in, "so it comes to this"↑ in boldface, and then a reposted typal screed in the manner of conservative now-more-than-everism. So it comes to someone reposting an anonymous coward's fulfillment of cyclical station in reciting the same old bullshit we always hear, and I admit that compared to the history of American machismo, this quaking, blubbering, nose-up, head-shaking petulance—"Well, fine, if it's just so hard to tell the difference between how I like to treat women and being disrespectful, I'll just take it out on women!"—really ought not be funny even in the context of its seeming futility; after all, a #WhatAboutTheMen context would seem to describe ... er ... ah ... y'know ... a problem of its own.

I mean, desperate is as desperate does, but the creepy old stereotype of trying too hard is part of what has changed; we see it as creepy, now, and not some charming loser character essential to a sitcom formula.

Nor is this funny: We have somehow arrived at another finite boundary in prevention advice, that women should not advise each other where danger is afoot.

At the very least, perhaps these tropes might finally be overplayed and out of time; I'm uncertain what the timescale would be, but thinking back to Exosci and the prewar community, we participated in a powerfully transformational period that, like many later societal and human transitions, seems to hinge on the period of historical repetition, breadth of mass media, and saturation of process and idea. Specifically: Old, simplistic religious grifts that might have worked in rural, "Jesusland" communities, conversion appeals aimed to exploit lack of education, and general wolf-shepherd-snakeoilery. Indeed, I sometimes recall a Simpsons episode (#BABF06, "Faith Off") that assails puerile appeals to invite Jesus into one's heart, part of John 3.16 "loving-God" Christendom, with the deathbed conversion argument. The appeal itself has changed some over the years, but its fault remains the same as it ever was, a failure to guard against subordination of Christ, but it's true that in the early years of the twenty-first century, Christianist promulgation found itself scrambling to reformulate as scrutiny during the rise of e-media proved too broad-scale and demanding to provide reliable results. So it is also true that we can, like many societal and human transitions, look at the late Nineties and Early Century as a transformational period contributing to our decivilizing traditionalist roar; their period of crisis only deepens.

We might recall the Gay Fray was a proxy fight, and thus observe that we started returning, as a society, to arguing more directly about women again as outcomes started becoming apparent, because at least a couple relevant lines emerge for inquiry and discussion: Whereas the Gay Fray included white men among its ostensible winners, the appeal to emotion and some fallacious zero-sum nonsense by which the humanity of woman somehow denigrates men is a much easier sell, in part because there is an existential stake for open traditionalists that is easily accessible for feeling existential. Additionally, the traditionalist scramble for reformulation and reiteration is a powerful lender toward the widespread alienation many who do not otherwise consider themselves traditionalist attempt to describe in explaining antisocial outbursts from the political right, or attempting to justify supremacism, authoritarianism, and dereliction.

The rising pitch of desperation likely describes something more cyclical, but we are within a range American society has witnessed before: Simplistic fallacy will play out over and over, with blind and increasingly vicious reiteration, at such pace that the repetition eventually forces society to eventually acknowledge the facts of fallacy and behavioral vice. If, as such, this is a battle in the War of the Sexes, then we know already how "men", as such, intend to lose. More historically and societally, traditional empowerment claws and screeches and kicks and bites in hopes of doing as much damage as possible on its way down; in the end, the point is to hurt, hurt, hurt as many as possible as much as they can manage before it's over. We've been watching American Christendom reel for decades under the influence of a toxic Christianism; in my lifetime it is possible to draw an arc from through books, music, television, and movies, into the latter-day culture wars posturing Christianist supremacism against selected targets such as homosexuals, working women, unmarried women, women in general, and even skin that isn't pale enough to satisfy other aesthetics. It is not surprising that women are the connection through that arc. And just like white supremacism can appeal to someone who isn't Christianist, so, too, can misogyny appeal to people off the traditional American Christianist arc. Yes, that point always feels strange to remind, but, well, you know how it goes; looking around the room it's like, yeah, cover the base or else someone will make the point.

Still, though, there are people who seem to rely on the market, that one ought to be allowed to denigrate himself with little or no regard for how that affects anyone else, and as irrational as such propositions are for their requisite demand of inherent human rationality, there is always the possibility that this deep-throated, angry, incoherent roar from the Guardians of Rape Culture will actually have some inevitable repulsive effect. I don't know, though; like I said, we won the Gay Fray because the winners included white men.

Meanwhile, I don't have any good advice in certain contexts; this is one of those subjects by which I can spend all day thinking about and working on a post only to expect an effort-free retort from the ostensible other side; I don't know what to tell you, though, about the damage those people do in lieu of having anything to say. At some point it occcurs to wonder, if this is how a person sees other people then perhaps there is a reason they feel so isolated. And of course people whine and equivocate because it really is a multipath dynamic, but therein lies a hook; the personal, inward focus also advises, invites, and instructs others to look into that person as such. As a result, we might know more of what someone thinks about female graduate students than the dimensions of how they comprehend due process. And in such cases it generally turns out to be a somewhat nasty glimpse.

Tevna once reminded that suffering turns one's attention inward; legend says his simple observation changed the course of an empire. Results will vary, naturally, but I do find myself recalling, these days, what the pyrologist said.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Distraction: ¡Scotqueer cosplay!​

In superficial political discourse, when the issue percolates to view, there are a couple points worth mentioning about male elementary teachers in the U.S.: Efforts to recruit more male teachers are generally blunted under our exceptionally dysfunctional regard for public education; various American cultural factors line up in a manner that amplifies familiar circular rhetoric whereby men perceive too much risk in the setting according to their perceptions of their own culture, and the general expression is that they're afraid of child abuse accusations.

And in my state there is an infamous historical episode involving prosecutors taking down a daycare for contrived abuse allegations. In my society, we are so far from ever being able to properly discuss the roles of American Christendom and purity cult in contrived abuse allegations now described, ironically, as an hysteria ... that is ... so far ... I mean, really, it's a nearly ineffable mess. For Americans, at least, it is important to recall that the "moral panic" of the "day-care sex-abuse hysteria"↱ was driven in part by powerful religious constructs because, as we see in so many masculinistic complaints, we still blame victims, even when they're children.

†​

To the other, there are certain discussions that seem almost impossible according to their American context: Is there ever an occasion that addressing body comfort and how fathers regard proximal contact with male or female children that isn't shiveringly, writhingly difficult?

Or, for the shortcut: Even for the men who aren't child molesters, there is an inward observational component about the unease they express. And while sex and gender roles are not in and of themselves rape culture, this is one of the more specific lenses I could ever have forgotten to ask for. I think the best formulation I have for the moment is that we do not sexualize "woman" so much as "female", and this particular question of schoolteachers, in its American context, is one of the most apparent examples of how masculine cultural iteration falls into ego defense because a person instinctively perceives their own exposure.

There are many creepier episodes in history than Ferenczi's "confusion of tongues", but it ought well enough make some manner of point that people needed this part explained to them. And in the history of humanity learning to recognize itself, okay, sure, market demand, first time, all that. We are, what, not even a century out, and if it seems we have regressed it is because we have yet to overcome massive taboo cultivated around a totemistic and subordinating definition of female or feminine that leaves my society simultaneously resentful toward the produce of our behavior, but far too discomfited about our pretenses of civilization and being better than all that to actually discuss the object relations defining how we physically engage—how we touch—our children.

It's also true I have this weird memory that we both heard about male elementary school teachers once upon a time because of something about children and airlines, so, yeah, something about percolation and superficial political discourse.

†​

There are many ways in which the easy thing to do is blame "female", but in these United States schoolteaching became acceptable women's work a long time ago, including extraordinary conduct codes of virtue. More recently, at least, during my lifetime, Americans have treated our public schools like an annoying symptom. It is an interesting consideration, also, in questions that might arise about compensation disparity, as the apologetics for inequality argue that men pursue higher-paying jobs, and we might thus wonder why men would rush for such underappreciated and mistreated labor as elementary school teacher.

(Aside: There are a few words I'm waiting on, in my society, in the sense that they have largely disappeared but, like names that seem "old", will be back. That "schoolmarm" has not in my lifetime been a complimentary characterization of a woman makes some kind of point; I am uncertain, in my lexicon, which is supposed to be worse according to the pejorative context, the schoolmarm or the spinster. I'll go with schoolmarm because Stephen King once wrote a line about a spinster and a large carrot, and by the standard a schoolmarm isn't capable even of being that much fun.)​

To a certain degree it is true of supremacism in general and misogyny in particular, but traditional American empowerment has so forgotten itself that it does not care whether one aspect of belief complements, contradicts, or can be reconciled with any other. When the point is to inflict damage and disruption, the components have no particular need to ever form a functional whole.

†​

Rabbit jokes abound, but more to the point, it is true enough historical subtlety is not a specialty of superficial political discourse, but it would be nice if every now and then the vapid hubris reminding priority would get around to explaining why first of all we need to stop and talk about male elementary school teachers. The thing about that, or course, is that doing so demands the vapid hubristic prioritization should get around to having a clue.
____________________

Notes:

Wikipedia. "Day-care sex-abuse hysteria". 23 December 2017. en.Wikipedia.org. 4 January 2018. http://bit.ly/2lUXo8s

 

The creation of their white ethnostate, free of Jews, blacks and cultural Marxism, yes.

See that your problem, you believe they are all the same and all irremediable, that attitude will assure a second term for trump. we NEED to pull of just a small percentage of them, and we can't do that with you and your ilk dividing and ostracizing even more people.

Who is president now? I argue it is because people like you have cut out all counter thought demonize anyone that does not agree with your clique fully. Your interpretation of his memo is precisely the problem, he suggest an alternate theory on why their is a non-50/50 gender ratio and the need to be able to at least discuss and review alternate theories, and was fired for it. You see it as "right wing propaganda" and refuse to actually review his arguments from there on. People like you cut out everyone else, and now we have trump for it. All those people that voted against their own interests, some of them did it not because of religion, or guns or abortion, but just because they had been banished by people like you, told they were "right wing" enough times that they came to believe.

No that your mis-charaterization, projection and red herring. He is saying the the #metoo hysteria will results in businesses questions why to hire women, a unwanted consequence that will harm women. Speaking out about harassment on social media will have very harmful consequences to women, because the properway would be to have all those women go to the police.

If going to the police is "second rape" then what is your solution? Dumping it on social media? I'm telling you all the harmful consequences of that, that it will cost liberals and women more then it may gain, and what does it gain, that several harassers are defamed? That is worth it all?

Threatened about what? How do I feel threatened?

How? How is saying "don't do that" make me come across as a misogynistic creep? You are being absurd: your refusing to acknowledge how impossible it is to not make anyone uncomfortable. Others have made me uncomfortable, women have made me uncomfortable, yet I did not think of them as misandristic creeps, you on the other hand are insane if you think you need a key jammed between you fingers to defend your self against me, but I'm not threaten by that either, I would gladly take your keys to my face, ever scar added to the price of the law suit against you for assault.

Well then we have very different general gist of it. If you can't even accept arguing that the non-50/50 gender ratio is possibly because on average women have different interests and personalities, in good faith, then I don't see how we can progresses. I have no problem saying biology is the reason for certain male behaviors and personality. Men are more prone to autism than women for the same reason men are more prone to be taller then women, I don't take offense to that, even though I suspect I'm 'on the spectrum', but bringing up that women may be more prone to neuroticism, and you get triggered, even though that means nothing of you as a individual women (though saying you want to key me is suspiciously neurotic). There is nothing preventing women from taking high stress jobs, or asking for a raise, or being disagreeable, if culture tells you it a un-womenly, well stop listening to culture, if your biology makes you more agreeable and neurotic, recognize that and work around it. If biology gives you a disgusting urge to squeeze out more human plague, but you want a career, you have to choose to sacrifice one or the other, balancing both will be hard and frankly I advice you choose a career instead and swing on tinder, but do as you want, choose as you want for yourself and blame no one but your self for your choices.

Why do you keep bring up this red herring? How about this, you tell me why you think i'm "spreading right wing propaganda" I can take a guess at what the answer already is. You have a preset belief about me and see only what you want to see to fulfill that belief, now if you believe that a winning plurality of the electorate are misogynistic creeps, well you sort of made that a self fulfilling prophesy.

Now since you keep asking this question of me, yet have not answer my questions of you I don't see a reason to answer. Perhaps we can agree on an exchange of questions and answer, answer me my question first: Would you vote for Bob Dole or Bill Clinton?

I not going to reply to second post, but this part at the end caught my eye:

Sexual assault has not been acceptable for some time now, decades now. The surveyed rates of it have been going down... what more do you want?

 

It's easier to dismiss others as "the enemy" and lump anyone with an opposing idea together, rather than remembering that they are human beings as well.

Institutionalized rejection of difference is an absolute necessity in a profit economy which needs outsiders as surplus people.
​

Basically, it is easier to argue against "the enemy" than to try and reconcile differences and work together towards a goal. A sad thing, to say the least... But it seems to be the standard mindset in this thread. It is also, in my opinion, the single greatest thing that has prevented an end to these kinds of issues. Why treat someone with kindness or care about them when you barely even see them as human?

 

Got a problem with that? Call a cop.

 

We can't "pull" any of the Trump voting core Republican electorate. They are in practical fact unreachable by reason - they have to wake up on their own. It's a waste of time to address them at all.

Meanwhile, there is a much larger pile of votes to be had among the suppressed, defrauded, and otherwise discouraged body of non-voters. Simply reducing racial voter suppression and voting machine frauds of various kinds would have beaten Trump, for example - and that can be done by legal force.