#rapeculture | #TheWomenAreSpeaking
Dear sweet harem: Click because baby girl is a woman who wants to monopolize him so badly for he is so wimpy they are all devoted to him.
You suddenly can't read? Are my posts really that confusing to you?
So, there's this bit where trolls do, where they point to something as if it makes a point, but what they're really doing is trying to pretend they didn't say or do something.
Both the women initially speaking about Franken voted for Trump, apparently. Is that part of their message?
Is the pattern of comparative media response in the male-owned media something that men can talk about - even if it's being fronted by hired women?
Is the Republican false equivalence approach - central in every other significant issue facing this country's news media - something men in particular cannot talk about in this matter?
If the Republican men drag out Bill Clinton, connect him to Franken by Party, and prop all their former lies about him in front of the issue, thereby helping Roy Moore get elected to the Senate and quite possibly Franken removed, may other men comment on this tactic?
Does Kellyanne Conway count as a women speaking on this issue, before whose gender-specific insights we men must remain silent - [link]
Are your own posts so distressing to you that you need to pretend you didn't write that?
You do make the point, though. "Republican men". You're upset that women's narratives are being subordinated to masculine political narrative? Is this because that's the wrong thing to do, or because you would subordinate the narrative differently?
There's always a reason, isn't there, women need to wait until the men are satisfied? And what, really, is that reason? Are they less important than your politics? Or do you just know better than they do?
The attacks on Franken - mediated and controlled and framed (and quite often "spoken"), as they are, by powerful Republican men - are designed to dismiss, marginalize, and if possible shut down, those speaking women who are undermining the Republican agenda (and the patriarchal, male dominated, misogynist core of its support). And you are collaborating with those men.
Iceaura, take a look around. Who needs to write the narrative for women?
The problem with arbitrary attacks like you're attempting is that they often reveal what they're supposed to hide.
Think it through, Iceaura: If Republican men do something wrong unto women, then why do you get to do the same?
Or to put it in your language, to help you understand: why are you advocating tolerance of male sexual predation on top of ennabling Republican campaign tactics?
Honestly, Iceaura, this might work better if you weren't so desperately arbitrary.
Think of it this way: Instead of accusing that the results of my conduct in this thread help rape culture, you accuse me of deliberately trying to do so.
So I'll just recall that tirade on behalf of stalkers who need guns, and note your priorities are about as obvious as they were when you were screeching about Amy Klobuchar and the Nanny State↗.
Seriously, the simple fact of you and me sitting here making so goddamn much noise about the right and wrong way for women to tell us what they have to say pretty much makes a certain point that only ever needs to be made in order to remind the circumstance is problematic.
†
Let us try it in terms more suited to your advocacy: Look, at some point they're going to taper off, take a breath, and shut up, and then it will be men's turn to talk, and we better damn well have something better to say than scolding women under a pretense of what they did wrong in telling us.
†
To borrow a logical example that ought to be clear to ... y'know, not so much anyone, but at some point the people who purport to care about certain issues ought to be able to at least sketch certain general objects within the framework. Like this:
I would say the same applied to both sides. Democrats could have stood up for the victims and nail rape culture as well, but refused to do so because of partisan politics.
Both sides are exploiting and blaming victims for political gain.
To the one, there is a pathological hair I would split; I think you're probably familiar with it, Iceaura.
To the other:
(1) Bells is not wrong.
(2) She is, specifically, correct.
(3) The point of pathology I would focus on will show through in the historical record.
(4) Said pathology and its components will only resolve more clearly and accurately for having more data.
↳ If anyone ever needs a logical reason why now is not the time for splitting certain hairs, then now they have it.
(2) She is, specifically, correct.
(3) The point of pathology I would focus on will show through in the historical record.
(4) Said pathology and its components will only resolve more clearly and accurately for having more data.
(a) If what I want is politics, then there is no time like the present. If, however, I seek comprehension, address, and solution, then yes, it actually behooves me to wait.
↳ If anyone ever needs a logical reason why now is not the time for splitting certain hairs, then now they have it.
†
Here's some more logic: So, for whatever reason, Juanita Broaddrick went on the air to back Trump, very possibly endorse mudslinging against victims, and blame Hillary Clinton for all sexual harassment against women over the last twenty years.
Am I going to pick a fight with a rape survivor who could only find public support in people who would exploit her? Why the fuck under the sun would I? Especially because part of her own living hell is that if anyone remembers this episode, ten or twenty years down the line, it will be filed under embittered blaming Hillary for everything.
I would have no idea how to answer her. But if you want the politics of it, the Twitter capsule for the story from The Hill is brutal.
†
In terms of politics, all any of us had to do about Al Franken was keep our goddamn mouths shut. He knew the score. Politically, he is testing an example.
In terms of Roy Moore, we don't have the particular data we need. To wit, Alabama voters will either send him to the U.S. Senate, or not; they have, during the time people have known of his penchant for young girls, twice sent him to the state Supreme Court as Chief Justice.
Right now polling speaks well for Doug Jones, but there is also an emerging transformation of how we look at the human individual relating to the social phenomena our species builds. It seems a weird example, but fire alarms, despite the most obvious presupposition, do not turn out to inform us about a fire; rather, we behave as if fire alarms grant us permission to respond to a fire. The reason it stands out is that polling can become notoriously inaccurate under certain stresses, and this has something to do with assertions of perceptions of judgmental assessments. This will lend to at least some of Jones' increase in support, and this is Alabama, so that unknown value could be insignificant or it could make all the difference in the world. When choosing to answer someone who has their phone numbers, to what degree are people's answered by presupposition, assignation, of value judgment in the pollster? When choosing to address their ostensibly secret ballot, will they actually give the same answer?
Quite honestly, no amount of mansplanation I throw at this issue will change the way Alabama votes.
Please consider that while I stand, in the face of any War on Women, alongside, behind, or wherever my sisters need me, the range of definitions we might assign the word "War", while they do not include any good outcomes, do in fact include significant ranges of bad enough outcomes as to compel anyone to wish for a slightly less desperate problem.
Alabama is really pissed off that it lost the Gay Fray. And, yse, I stand on my assertion that the Gay Fray was, at heart, about women. What do I think is about to happen? I would very much like to believe that Yellowhammer voters will find the courage to send a Democrat to the Senate, but I'm going to need to see it happen.
†
Meanwhile, that I consider the GOP the Party of Rape Advocacy does not in any way mean rape culture has some dimension of partisan boundary. Seriously, leftist demagogues who convince others they have even a small measure of power, like that one Trotskyist who had Redgrave's support, can be as sick as any televangelist. And Koestler was a Marxist-Leninist, and fuck-all, I don't ever want to comprehend his apparent personal theses about women; it's almost inevitable that he would coin the word mimophant.
And if this was just an electoral cycle with a sex scandal, well, yeah, now I get to rethink the line that goes here, because it's true, I see utility in fighting some of these fights. But this is about more than the electoral cycle, and right now we verge on class warfare atrocity by focusing on politicians and celebrities.