USA Politics

[The Flash]

From what I've read on their history, Hillary seems awfully corrupt and fickle to me. So yes, the way I see it, she IS evil. Not a politician I'd vote for.

Trump is also a very fickle minded person. Some of his thoughts or almost left wing, some are extreme right. The guy says he argues for isolationalist foreign policy, then advocates for a war crime in Iraq and Syria.

Bernie Sanders, although his ideas may be too radical to ever come to fruition, is the only consistent candidate.

 

[LooseCannon]

Maybe, but I maintain that third-wave feminism is pointless outside of these countries, where women's rights are actually a concern. It's becoming more and more domineering and less and less egalitarian in the first world, since 99.9% of the problems have been addressed here.

Sorry. You're completely wrong. Third wave feminism is very important to the things going on today, at least in my country and in the USA.

Consider, for example, the simple fact that until last year, no major western nation's cabinet was 50% female, 50% male. Consider the pay gap, which is 77 cents on the dollar in the USA and only a few cents better in Canada. Consider the fact that women who dare to write critiques of sexual imagery in gaming are swamped in waves of death and rape threats, are repeatedly swatted, and denigrated for their gender, rather than having their ideas challenged?

These are things happening today in the developed world. It is a lot harder to change anything in a place like Saudi Arabia than it is here. But the easy work here is done. So now we just have hard work to do.

 

[The Flash]

Gamergate was complete and utter bullshit LC. Sorry. The cries about "sexual imagery in games" was the most two-faced, hypocritical piece of criticism I've ever heard. None of those feminists batted an eye at male game heroes who have a ton of muscle. None of them looked at superheroes with gigantic packages. None of them looked at Spiderman posters with his legs spread out and outline of his balls visible. None of them looked at men being killed like nothing in games and just focused on female violence. Hypocrisy.

I'm more on RTC's side on this one. There are places in the world where feminism is very much needed, my country being one of them. But not the developed Western nations. The pay gap is a myth. There's no disadvantage for women when you factor in the maternity leaves, hours worked and fields involved. All economic studies that favor the idea of a pay gap in the West are grossly simplified. If women were indeed getting paid less for the same work, companies would be busting their ass trying to hire women over men.

Third wave feminism is filled with paradigm shifts, fallacies and hypocrisy. Not only that, but I also think it actually tries to restrict women's freedom with BS concepts like "sexual objectification", which is an attack on both male and female sexuality. Looking for offense to get offended, yelling out "Sexist!" at everything, attacking free speech constantly, trying to restrict sexual freedom and what you prefer to do with your body and the list goes on.

How about we focus on women that actually NEED to be liberated? That's what classical feminism stood for. And as an egalitarian, I'm in complete support for feminism in the classical sense.

 

[RTC]

Sorry. You're completely wrong. Third wave feminism is very important to the things going on today, at least in my country and in the USA.

No, it would be maybe 100 years ago, but we're past pretty much all of the government prejudice towards women in both the US and Canada. Anything more is overkill; and not egalitarian.

Consider, for example, the simple fact that until last year, no major western nation's cabinet was 50% female, 50% male.

Because on average, more men pursue a career in politics than women. If anything, the fact that men who may have better skills to offer are being rejected in order to reach a quota is pretty depressing, and it goes against meritocracy. It's unlikely that the ratio of the best people for the job is 50% male and female, it really depends on the profession.

Consider the pay gap, which is 77 cents on the dollar in the USA and only a few cents better in Canada.

Consider the fact that women who dare to write critiques of sexual imagery in gaming are swamped in waves of death and rape threats, are repeatedly swatted, and denigrated for their gender, rather than having their ideas challenged?

You're always going to get idiots who do this kind of stuff, and it happens to everyone, not just women.

I'd also like to single out the accusation of threats; how many times have the people making these threats actually followed through with them? It's empty words; a complete definition of the word "keyboard warrior"; no-one actually planning that crime would give their victim prior knowledge.

These are things happening today in the developed world. It is a lot harder to change anything in a place like Saudi Arabia than it is here. But the easy work here is done. So now we just have hard work to do.

You've contradicted yourself there, LC. You admit the easy work is over, so why not actually attack the systems where discrimination against women is actually supported by the law, instead of looking for discrimination where there is none in our current meritocracy.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

I agree generally with LC's sentiments : lots of work still to be done.

Consider, for example, the simple fact that until last year, no major western nation's cabinet was 50% female, 50% male.

I know you said "major", but the SNP had an gender equal cabinet.

If women were indeed getting paid less for the same work, companies would be busting their ass trying to hire women over men.

Female dominated professions are poorly paid e.g. the care sector. You don't see the link? I think it's pretty clear.

Third wave feminism is filled with paradigm shifts, fallacies and hypocrisy. Not only that, but I also think it actually tries to restrict women's freedom with BS concepts like "sexual objectification", which is an attack on both male and female sexuality. Looking for offense to get offended, yelling out "Sexist!" at everything, attacking free speech constantly, trying to restrict sexual freedom and what you prefer to do with your body and the list goes on.

Are you saying sexual objectification is made up? How is this bullshit?

How about we focus on women that actually NEED to be liberated? That's what classical feminism stood for. And as an egalitarian, I'm in complete support for feminism in the classical sense.

Liberation? Woman just want and end to sexism & misogyny.

It's unlikely that the ratio of the best people for the job is 50% male and female, it really depends on the profession.

Maybe you could name some professions that are better suited to each gender?

I'd also like to single out the accusation of threats; how many times have the people making these threats actually followed through with them? It's empty words; a complete definition of the word "keyboard warrior"; no-one actually planning that crime would give their victim prior knowledge.

At the very least it's fucking annoying. Would you put up with your Twitter account being trashed daily with death & rape threats? You can't just brush this aside as "empty words".

You admit the easy work is over, so why not actually attack the systems where discrimination against women is actually supported by the law, instead of looking for discrimination where there is none in our current meritocracy.

No discrimination?

 

[The Flash]

Are you saying sexual objectification is made up? How is this bullshit?

Yes. Sexual objectification is bullshit. Both sexes are attracted to certain things. There's no objectification. A man being attracted to the picture of a woman doesn't make the woman an object. And a woman posing for a picture in a sexual manner is not cheapening herself in any way. It's natural, some choose to do it, some choose not to. And it's fine.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

A bit like integrity not existing, is it?

 

[The Flash]

I don't buy the concept of modesty. A promiscuous woman is not a whore, a promiscuous man is not a manwhore. A woman dressing in a suggestive manner is not a slut. A man showing off his arms is not a fuckboy. I immensely dislike sexual repression and think of it as a serious problem. It's fine to be sexually attracted to people and want people to be sexually attracted to you.

Female dominated professions are poorly paid e.g. the care sector. You don't see the link? I think it's pretty clear.

You get paid bigger amounts if the industry/field is bigger. It has nothing to do with gender discrimination. What do you want to happen? To make sure nurses get paid more just because it's a female dominated field? We'd have a discussion if a female doctor got paid less than a male doctor for the exact same job with exact same working hours. And it doesn't happen. Not in the West, at least. There are places where it does happen and that's where we should focus on.

 

[Mosh]

Yes. Sexual objectification is bullshit. Both sexes are attracted to certain things. There's no objectification. A man being attracted to the picture of a woman doesn't make the woman an object. And a woman posing for a picture in a sexual manner is not cheapening herself in any way. It's natural, some choose to do it, some choose not to. And it's fine.

What about when men attempt to harass women for nudes on the internet? Or catcalling in the street? Or sexual trafficking? How is that not objectification?

 

[The Flash]

What about when men attempt to harass women for nudes on the internet? Or catcalling in the street? Or sexual trafficking? How is that not objectification?

That's abuse. Stems from sexual attraction, gets out of control and gets violent. Has nothing to do with objectification. Because objectification doesn't exist.

 

[Mosh]

From wikipedia:

Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as an instrument of sexual pleasure. Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity.

I don't understand how you can claim that this doesn't exist.

 

[The Flash]

"Instrument of sexual pleasure" is a bullshit concept. You get off because you're naturally attracted to certain things. Having sex would be objectification as well, in that case.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Because it's bullshit, Mosh. Everything is bullshit.

 

[Mosh]

I think there is an obvious difference between two consenting adults participating in sexual activities and one person (could be male or female) treating another person (again could be either male or female) solely as a sexual object.

 

[The Flash]

I think there is an obvious difference between two consenting adults participating in sexual activities and one person (could be male or female) treating another person (again could be either male or female) solely as a sexual object.

Again, if you do a sexual act on a person without consent, it's abuse. Objectification is an irrelevant concept, abuse is a crime. And abuse has nothing to do with inequality. No rapist rapes a woman because they think "Oh she's a woman, I can get away with it".

We're derailing the conversation here because me rejecting the concept of sexual objectification has nothing to do with the general conversation on third wave of feminism. That has more to do with the way I view sex and sexuality. Even if I understood it in a way you do, it doesn't change my first point: Third wave feminists are looking for "objectification" on any display of visual attraction to people. Visual sexual attraction is NOT "sexual objectification". Sexualizing things is normal and natural. Sexualization is not objectification/abuse.

 

[Brigantium]

It's not about mere attraction, it means specific efforts to reduce a person's entire being to a sexual commodity, in particular focusing on a particular detail of their anatomy as the be all and end all of that person, ie the only thing that's 'important' to the viewer. The media examples that get the criticism are usually mainstream ads that show just part of a woman's body, especially without a face, so it's depersonalised. The viewer doesn't have to look her in the eye, just see an anonymous body in a sexually available or violable posture. The collective impact of such depictions in commercial advertising being commonplace, if not drifting towards being presented as the norm, is what is usually criticised. You do see headless nudity in some male cosmetics ads, but it's not quite as widespread and not usually intended to be sexual.

Women's rights, indeed the rights of all kinds of people, are absolutely appalling in a lot of societies, I agree, but I don't think it makes it any less valid to identify and and criticise dehumanising perceptions, or poorer treatment of any group in society, in the West. Same goes for race hate and homophobia to name just two examples.

 

[bearfan]

I think there is an obvious difference between two consenting adults participating in sexual activities and one person (could be male or female) treating another person (again could be either male or female) solely as a sexual object.

Solely is pretty loaded. You are in some location and you see two women .. you know zero about either of them ... you find one physically attractive the other not so much. Who are you going to try to get to know. Shockingly, women do the same thing.

As a question, what does anyone propose be done to cat callers, what about serial cat callers ... are you going to lock these people up? I fully agree it is poor behavior, really low class. But I do not think it is a police matter.

 

[RTC]

Maybe you could name some professions that are better suited to each gender?

That's rather a loaded question. I never insinuated that professions are "better suited" to a gender, it's that certain jobs are more likely to appeal to those of a certain gender, whether for gender roles, or simple biology is a variable that is different for every person. If we're talking about Justin Trudeau's proportional representation government here, it's highly likely that more qualified men were not considered for positions simply because the 50% male quota had been reached, which in an egalitarian meritocracy, is fucking bullshit, considering they can't control the gender they are born as.

At the very least it's fucking annoying. Would you put up with your Twitter account being trashed daily with death & rape threats? You can't just brush this aside as "empty words".

I don't at all agree with rape and death threats, but this is not a problem that will go away; you can't control individual people's actions. In the same way things like theft and murder will always exist, so too will empty threats.

No discrimination?

From official legislation in first-world countries towards women? No.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

I think I'll just leave you guys to it. I'm not sure we live in the same world.

 

[bearfan]

Excellent

In an important victory for property rights nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on Monday that landowners have the right to seek judicial review of federal determinations which say that their properties contain "waters of the United States" subject to stringent regulations under the Clean Water Act.
The case of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. centered on a peat-mining business that has been prevented from using some of its property because the Army Corps of Engineers determined that the land in question contained federally protected wetlands. The Hawkes Co. disagreed with that determination and set out to challenge it in federal court. But the federal government maintained that judicial review was not an option for landowners at this stage under the Clean Water Act.
In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the federal government's position. "If respondents discharged fill material without a permit, in the mistaken belief that their property did not contain jurisdictional waters, they would expose themselves to civil penalties of up to $37,500 for each day they violated the [Clean Water] Act, to say nothing of potential criminal liability," Roberts observed "Respondents need not assume such risks while waiting for EPA to 'drop the hammer' in order to have their day in court."
All eight justices concurred in Roberts' judgment. However, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, wrote separately in order to criticize the "ominous reach" of the Clean Water Act itself. The act, Kennedy wrote, "continues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government's power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation." In effect, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito just invited future litigants to file more property rights cases against the Clean Water Act.