Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 29,208
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 29,208
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 25, 2013, 07:45 AM (1 replies)
How many have heard misogynists complain that there is a double-standard, that if a man said the same thing a woman says about him something horrible would happen? So what would happen if a man mocked a woman? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not only are they able to mock with impunity, they can insult and describe women as "sluts," "bitches," and "whores" with absolutely no repercussions, not even jury hides. Consider for a minute that the English language contains no similar insult for men. There is no gender specific term to insult a man's sexuality, to demean him as nothing but an object of sex, or to refer to him as less than human--a "bitch," a female dog.
Let's examine the true double standard. Look at the recent hide in this group for "misandry": a series of cartoons that make no mention of men as a whole, a particular group of DUers, or an individual member. Whereas calling women "attention whores" and "sluts" is allowed to stand. "Bitch" has become part of the common vernacular in English. The thoughtless tell us it means the words aren't sexist, when in fact it shows that misogyny is so deeply ingrained in American culture than too many are accustomed to cavalier, daily degradation of women.
The male persecution complex is entirely divorced from reality. It shows absolutely no understanding of history, anthropology, sociology, or any contemporary mode of analysis. Some decry the fact that feminists engage in "sociological analysis." Higher education is indeed a liberal conspiracy that might one day dislodge white male privilege. That is why education is crucial to empowerment. But some wedded to the past century--or even the 19th--prefer to avoid thinking altogether. How else could anyone so mindlessly maintain a view of the world--male exploitation at the hands of female privilege--entirely divorced from reality? This argument is the hallmark of extreme right-wing Men's Rights Association (MRA. or as I prefer to call them, MRAsma) dogma. Women's rights oppress men. Our efforts to achieve equality--whether political, economic, social, or cultural--are themselves seen as oppressive. MRAsmas see male privilege as entirely natural, so much so they see any challenge to it an attack on their very being, prompting them to lash out.
So yes, it's horrible that women's struggles have allowed us to participate in the public sphere, that we are able to enter the work force and earn 77 cents on the dollar to a man. It's economically unfair that many women use more medical resources than men and that agencies can't charge us more because our diabolical wombs give birth to babies. Somehow the fact that they are also the children of men entirely escapes the attention of those who whine about women taking up disproportionate medical resources. So yeah, "fuck every last one" of us. The hell with us for having the nerve to occupy the same planet with men and propagate the continuation of the human species. And mostly, fuck us for thinking we have the audacity to voice opinions. There is nothing MRAsmas hate more than women who disagree with them in public. The fact we think we deserve to be treated as actual human beings makes us "evil." The only good woman recognizes her inherent inferiority and doesn't let on the fact she reads or thinks. She lets you pretend you are actually smart because it's our job to prop up fragile egos. When we don't, we are "evil, dark, and whiny."
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Sep 24, 2013, 09:32 PM (27 replies)
POLL: Americans overwhelmingly approve of background checks for gun purchases
Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?
Source: CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
Date conducted: 1/14/2011 - 1/16/2011
Sample: 1,014 adults
Margin of error: +/- 3% pts
More About: CNN , Gun Control , Issue , Opinion Research
According to This Poll
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll finds that 94 percent of Americans approve of background checks for people attempting to buy a gun.
A more detailed but older poll from SEIU Daily KOS from last December
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Sep 20, 2013, 12:54 AM (13 replies)
Many of them oppose them and make false claims that all gun sales already go through background checks in an effort to deter people from acting. If that were true, why would the NRA devote so much money into defeating background check bills?
BTW, please click on the second link to accept the challenge about calling your representatives to demand expanded background check legislation.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:16 PM (130 replies)
It's amazing how you avoid reading any newspapers and magazines that show how people buy guns without background checks all the time. You know they do. The fact is that is exactly how you want it.
This is a colossal waste of time, like every discussion with you. So now you're on record opposing any and all background check legislation by insisting it isn't necessary. I knew you were spinning a big one to Loudly yesterday. I'm through with you.
Anyone who wants verification of your denial of evidence about gun trafficking to Mexico and federal research on guns can check my journal a few months back and entries will lead to those discussions. Here we have more evidence of your denials of reality.
If all gun sales already were subject to background checks, why would the NRA devote so much money to defeating background check legislation?
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:10 PM (1 replies)
Enough hand-wringing. Are you going to call your elected representatives at the state and federal level and tell them you want to see a bill passed that expands background checks to private sales, internet sales, and gun shows? Time to step up. Enough claiming you support background checks. Do something. Surely we can all agree on this?
So this is my challenge: Contact your representatives and when you're done, check in on this thread and tell us who you contacted. If you don't feel comfortable disclosing their names, simply tell us the position of those you contacted. Outline any version of a background check bill you support, but understand that no legislation passed will ever be perfect. Holding out for a perfect bill is an excuse to oppose background check legislation. Whether you consider yourself a strong-defender of the Second Amendment or a proponent of gun control, it's time for us to come together on what we can agree on: Expanded background checks now!
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:48 PM (238 replies)
Are you going to call your elected representatives at the state and federal level and tell them you want to see a bill passed that expands background checks to private sales, internet sales, and gun shows? Time to step up. Enough claiming you support background checks. Do something. Surely we can all agree on this?
So this is my challenge: Contact your representatives and when you're done, check in on this thread and tell us who you contacted. If you don't feel comfortable disclosing their names, simply tell us the position of those you contacted. Outline any version of a background check bill you support, but understand that no legislation passed will ever be perfect. Holding out for a perfect bill is an excuse to oppose background check legislation. This is something all of us, whether strong Second Amendment supporters or avid gun control proponents, can agree on. Let's keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others.
A gungeoneer juror called this OP flame bait. I find that very sad that proposing expanded background checks, something pro-gun posters have claimed they support time and time again, is seen as flame bait.
If there are members interested in pressuring law makers to get a background check bill passed, here is a thread in GD you can respond to. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023692025
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:31 PM (140 replies)
Forty years ago today, the United States succeeded in its conspiracy with International Telephone and Telegraph to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. Allende was a socialist committed to democracy. Henry Kissinger, the principal architect of the coup, considered Allende a far greater threat to US interests-- and corporate capitalism in particular--than Fidel Castro, precisely because Allende was democratic and could have set an example for socialist movements throughout Europe and Latin America.
Allende's overthrow and assassination was followed by two decades of brutal dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet, whose government rounded up, tortured, and disappeared tens of thousands of Chileans. The US was aware of the torture and killings in Chile. Kissinger, in fact, observed that a minor concern like human rights should not get in the way of a good relationship with a friendly government like Pinochet's. Among the disappeared were some prominent Chileans, like the poet and folk singer Victor Jarra, and some ordinary, like the woman commemorated in this song performed by the weavers, which I find myself singing all day.
For documentary evidence on the US involvement in the coup, see the National Security Archives.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:46 PM (35 replies)
Robert Ellis has walked 15 miles, through the night, to get here. But he isn't here for a summertime fair.
"I really need my teeth fixed. They are really bad. And my hearing," Ellis says. "I don't know which one's worse, my hearing or my teeth." . . .
Ellis joins some 2,500 other people who over the course of three days line up in the wee hours of the morning in the hopes of getting free medical care. Many want their teeth checked or even pulled, others need their eyes examined, but some, like Sheila Johnson, are also looking for specialized medical care. . . .
"Even though the care here is quality care, we don't need to be doing this in the world's richest country," Brock says. "I would rather be back in Haiti, in India and Africa, and where this organization began in the Amazon than doing it here in the world's richest country. But I don't see this ending anytime soon." . . .
Over the course of three days in Wise, RAM helped 1,200 dental patients, pulled 4,000 teeth, grinded lenses for 900 pairs of glasses and in total provided more than $2 million dollars worth of health care. All free of charge.
"It doesn't matter where you go in the United States you are going to find huge numbers of people that either dont have access to care because it's an underserved area or in most cases they can't afford to go to the dentist, they can't afford to go to the eye doctor," Brock said. "So they are going to be relying on the kinds of services we provide."
Full Story and video at http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mobile-free-clinic-brings-health-care-uss-underserved/story?id=20016498
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Aug 23, 2013, 05:38 AM (11 replies)
Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men. Some suggest that women attack men, even sexually, just as much as men attack women. Others claim that vast numbers of reported rapes of women, as much as half or even more, are fabrications designed to destroy men they don’t like or to gain the upper hand in contested custody cases. What follows is a brief look at some of these claims and what the best science really shows.
THE CLAIM Men’s rights activists often insist that men are victimized by sex crimes and abuse just as much as women are, if not more. This assertion is meant to support their contention that the courts and laws outrageously favor women.
THE REALITY A major 2010 study by the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control thoroughly debunks such claims. Nearly one in five American women (18.3%), the study found, have been raped; the comparable number for men is one in 71 (1.4%). Not only that, but more than half (51.1%) of female victims reported that their rapist was an intimate partner — a current or former spouse or boyfriend, or a date. According to a 2000 study by the Department of Justice, female rape victims were also about twice as likely as male rape victims to be injured during an assault (31.5% versus 16.5%), even though many women do not physically resist their attackers for fear of injury. Overall, the studies found, most violence of all kinds against women (64%) came from current or former intimate partners, while that is true for only about one-sixth (16.2%) of men. Women were also far more likely to be stalked than men (16.2% versus 5.2%), and two-thirds of women’s stalkers (66.2%) were current or former intimate partners, compared to four in 10 for men (41.4%). A 2005 Department of Justice study also found that between 1998 and 2002, 84% of spousal abuse victims were female, as were 86% of victims of abuse at the hands of a dating partner. Males made up 83% of all spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers.
THE CLAIM Close to half or even more of the sexual assaults reported by women never occurred. Versions of this claim are a mainstay of sites like Register-Her.com, which specializes in vilifying women who allegedly lie about being raped. Such claims are also sometimes made by men involved in court custody battles.
THE REALITY This claim, which has gained some credence in recent years, is largely based on a 1994 article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior by Eugene Kanin that found that 41% of rape allegations in his study were “false.” But Kanin’s methodology has been widely criticized, and his results do not accord with most other findings. Kanin researched only one unnamed Midwestern town, and he did not spell out the criteria police used to decide an allegation was false. The town also polygraphed or threatened to polygraph all alleged victims, a now-discredited practice that is known to cause many women to drop their complaint even when it is true. In fact, most studies that suggest high rates of false accusations make a key mistake — equating reports described by police as “unfounded” with those that are false. The truth is that unfounded reports very often include those for which no corroborating evidence could be found or where the victim was deemed an unreliable witness (often because of drug or alcohol use or because of prior sexual contact with the attacker). They also include those cases where women recant their accusations, often because of a fear of reprisal, a distrust of the legal system or embarrassment because drugs or alcohol were involved. The best studies, where the rape allegations have been studied in detail, suggest a rate of false reports of somewhere between 2% and 10%. The most comprehensive study, conducted by the British Home Office in 2005, found a rate of 2.5% for false accusations of rape. The best U.S. investigation, the 2008 “Making a Difference” study, found a 6.8% rate.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Aug 21, 2013, 11:10 PM (14 replies)