I’m not actually going to do this every Monday, but since I’ve been trying to catch kids up on war and police brutality and the very in-your-face political topics, I thought it’d be nice to touch on something a little more subtle, but every bit as dangerous as any Statist propaganda—dangerous because this is what is shaping the mindsets of future leaders, thinkers, writers…
I present to you: »The highly intellectual thoughts of Feminist thought-leaders«
[This was originally going to be just a reblog of that list, but my comments got too long so I decided to just link to it. Moving on…]
Want to take away the rights of men and women? Don’t try to do it all at once. Do it slowly, through contrived and convoluted rhetoric that sets them against each other. Cement women in their roles as victims, and men into the roles of victimizers.
Any woman who refuses to be known as a “victim” has been “brainwashed by the Patriarchy”.
Any man who refuses to be known as a “victimizer” is a misogynist who needs to “check his privilege”.
Stuck in these roles long enough they’ll easily begin to actually hate each other. And once that happens you’ve effectively eliminated 50% of people who would object to policies and/or attitudes that hurt men or women.
And how easy it is to stick these roles on them with the false statistics they circulate, the biased studies they create and then reference, and the insanely hyperbolic reactions they have to things like: being hit on in an elevator (see Rebecca Watson v Richard Dawkins) or men making sex jokes—not even sex jokes, more like jokes with sexual innuendo (see Adria Richards v sex jokes/the world/two engineers who were not even addressing her). Say something they don’t like and you will have an angry mob of Feminists inciting vitriolic backlash the likes of which you couldn’t have imagined.
If we believe Feminism represents women, then inferring from the actions/words of feminists above we could only conclude that women are: dishonest, bad at statistics, bad at academic studies, inclined to overreaction, irrational, violent…
Wait a second, bad at math, over-emotional, spiteful? That sounds exactly like the public perception Feminism so LOVES to blame on “the Patriarchy”.
It’s starting to sound a lot like the Feminist movement actually hurts women more than it helps; it’s starting to sound like Feminism itself perpetuates the stereotypes and victimhood mentality that stunt the progress of women as a group and as individuals; it’s starting to sound like Feminism doesn’t represent women at all, but instead-like So.Many.Political.Movements-represents only the interests of a handful of individuals who have the most to gain from the policies and perception their rhetoric creates.
Women can’t be oppressors, women can’t be sexist, women can’t be rapists, women can’t be domestic abusers…
This doesn’t look like a win for women to me, it looks like a win for oppressors, sexists, rapists, and domestic abusers—and a heavy, heavy loss for their victims.
The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen.
I visited the site later, once I was able to bear the pain of seeing where he sat in his final moments. Local residents told me his body was blown to pieces. They showed me the grave where they buried his remains. I stood over it, asking why my grandchild was dead.
Nearly two years later, I still have no answers. The United States government has refused to explain why Abdulrahman was killed."
We. Are. The. Terrorists.
A friend of mine posted this Reddit thread to Facebook. I’ll quote a bit of it here:
You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.
Context: The author writes about the outcome of surveillance laws in the country where he lives, generally looked upon as a dictatorship—one of the Arab Spring countries—as a warning to Americans about what typically follows these sorts of laws.
I’d seen this thread already from a few Redditor friends of mine, who have otherwise shown little to no interest in speaking out against dangerous laws of this sort. So this was my response, to Redditors, to Democrats, to Republicans, to anyone who speaks up today and grows silent tomorrow when #NSA is no longer trending on Twitter:
This really is remarkable.
-a senior administration official [in this article about US cyber attacks]
…Am I the only one who gets legitimately terrified—down to my goddamn bones—when someone just casually says, “Hey, if you build things that are supposed to help people, we’re going to use them for war instead. Deal with it.”
I’m glad he makes the distinction though, “Once you build airplanes, we build air forces.”
Good. Don’t group me in with that shit.
While reading this I had to go find the Feinstein video to find out what she actually said, [I’m uncomfortable with paraphrased quotes that aren’t sourced…] and found a couple of choice quotes that I thought I’d share:
"Terrorists will come after us if they can."
-fear-mongering, warhawk Republic—oh wait, that was Dianne Feinstein.
"It’s called protecting America."
-George W. B—Oh damn, it’s Feinstein again. I get those two mixed up all the time. [You should click on that link, because I wasn’t just making a snarky general comparison…]
Minimum-wage laws date to the 1930s, and supporters in Congress at the time were explicit about using them to stop blacks from displacing whites in the labor force by working for less money. Milton Friedman regarded the minimum wage as “one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books.”
When you artificially increase the cost of labor, you wind up with surplus labor, which takes the form of unemployment. Younger and less-experienced workers—a disproportionate number of whom are black—are more likely to be priced out of the labor force when the cost of hiring someone goes up. Prior to the passage of minimum-wage laws—and in an era of open and rampant racial discrimination in the U.S.—the unemployment rate for black men was much lower than it is now and similar to that of whites in the same age group.
Today, unemployment stands at 7.9% overall but is 13.8% among blacks (versus 7% among whites), 14.5% among black men (versus 7.2% among white men) and 37.8% among black teens (versus 20.8% among white teens). Yet Mr. Obama has proposed increasing the minimum wage by 24% to $9 an hour to placate his union supporters who want less competition for their members. A higher minimum wage might lift earnings for existing workers—provided they keep their jobs—but it also reduces job opportunities for millions of people out of work.
Out of political expediency, Mr. Obama is putting the interests of Big Labor ahead of the urban poor."
As a member of a Hollywood union, I face a sort of minimum wage hurdle of my own. The next step up in my career is a substantial one - and one in which I am more than capable of making (a position I held - with, in fact, greater pay - on a number of non-union reality shows). But because of the union, I cannot take that position without being paid the union minimum for that position. In other words, the studio and producers would have to pay me the same rate they would pay a multiple-Emmy winner with 30 years of experience. I cannot offer to work for less as an opportunity to prove myself. I have no leverage - I cannot offer any incentive - for producers to hire a [relatively] young and eager talent over a reliable veteran. And indeed, I have missed out on multiple jobs precisely because of this artificial price floor.
- Repeal the Minimum Wage
- A Response to “An economic argument for the minimum wage”
- Minimum Wage, a Synopsis
- Re: On Minimum Wage, “show me the equity”
- Minimum Wage’s Discriminatory Effects
- #Minimum Wage
…but perhaps the most unsettling, is witnessing the very slow transition of political bloggers unfolding like this: Republican/Democrat—>something under the Libertarian umbrella—>some form of Anarchist—>”Mutualist”/some form of Marxist—>”Hey guys, let’s start a violent revolution!”
It’s some scary shit.