Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:


So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what? Even if I entirely disagreed with her political stance? Isn't that pretty much the definition of sexist?

Your own words are what damned you there, and it's too late to cover up your part in the issue that the country is facing when it comes to systematic sexism and the fact that you are part of the problem.

You can vote for Trump over Hillary and not be a sexist, it's your reply that paints you as a sexist.

You didn't argue that you chose a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate. You didn't argue that you chose an anti-immigration candidate over a pro-immigration candidate. You didn't argue that you chose a budget hawk over a spending hawk. You didn't argue that you chose the person with the best foreign policy credentials.

You said you voted for the guy who brags about sexual assault, but not the ugly ones, and calls women he disagrees with ugly and fat because "she is more vile".

So many reasons you could have voted for him, but you chose "she is more vile" as your reply when I pointed out all of his anti-women based behaviors. That's what makes you a shining example of the patriarchy.

Welcome to the New America, where if you think a female politician's record and actions are objectionable, you are sexist. And if you dare use a gender-neutral adjective to explain how you feel, you are the Patriarchy.

Never mind that Clinton described half of her opponents voters as deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, xenophobic, you name it. Nothing to see here. She gets a pass in the New America. Never mind she voted to send our brothers and sisters to die in a war for Exxon Mobil and Halliburton. She gets a pass in the New America. Never mind she takes money from repressive patriarchal regimes. She gets a pass in the New America.

I, for one, am glad we don't live in the New America, and we can still scrutinize individuals on their individual merit. I voted for Clinton because she seemed like the less risky choice, but she was a politician with a checkered record that I was not at all comfortable with, and the Democrats would do well to nominate a better candidate next time, male, female, or otherwise...and stop blaming her loss on sexism...it's too easy and shows no self-reflection.

Normally you may have a point, but there is a huge amount of evidence to show that Hillary is less vile than Trump; any conclusion otherwise simply can't be based on the factual evidence. And I don't say that lightly.

 jasper76 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:


So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what? Even if I entirely disagreed with her political stance? Isn't that pretty much the definition of sexist?

Your own words are what damned you there, and it's too late to cover up your part in the issue that the country is facing when it comes to systematic sexism and the fact that you are part of the problem.

You can vote for Trump over Hillary and not be a sexist, it's your reply that paints you as a sexist.

You didn't argue that you chose a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate. You didn't argue that you chose an anti-immigration candidate over a pro-immigration candidate. You didn't argue that you chose a budget hawk over a spending hawk. You didn't argue that you chose the person with the best foreign policy credentials.

You said you voted for the guy who brags about sexual assault, but not the ugly ones, and calls women he disagrees with ugly and fat because "she is more vile".

So many reasons you could have voted for him, but you chose "she is more vile" as your reply when I pointed out all of his anti-women based behaviors. That's what makes you a shining example of the patriarchy.

Welcome to the New America, where if you think a female politician's record and actions are objectionable, you are sexist. And if you dare use a gender-neutral adjective to explain how you feel, you are the Patriarchy.

Never mind that Clinton described half of her opponents voters as deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, xenophobic, you name it. Nothing to see here. She gets a pass in the New America. Never mind she voted to send our brothers and sisters to die in a war for Exxon Mobil and Halliburton. She gets a pass in the New America. Never mind she takes money from repressive patriarchal regimes. She gets a pass in the New America.

I, for one, am glad we don't live in the New America, and we can still scrutinize individuals on their individual merit. I voted for Clinton because she seemed like the less risky choice, but she was a politician with a checkered record that I was not at all comfortable with, and the Democrats would do well to nominate a better candidate next time, male, female, or otherwise...and stop blaming her loss on sexism...it's too easy and shows no self-reflection.

If only my post blamed her loss on sexism.

Go find a safe space.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Normally you may have a point, but there is a huge amount of evidence to show that Hillary is less vile than Trump; any conclusion otherwise simply can't be based on the factual evidence. And I don't say that lightly.

One point, and this was the major objection I had against Clinton. Clinton's record comes with a body count. She is as responsible as every other Senator who voted to send our troops to Iraq. There were other politicians like Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd who stood up against the drums of war, and saw the warmongering for what it was. But Clinton didn't listen, and our fellow Americans died for her mistake, to mention nothing of Iraqi casualties, which were much much higher. And to mention nothing of the civil wars that rage on to this day because of our misadventures.

Trump cannot be blamed for the war, Clinton can. Trump may be crude, ignorant, crass, impulsive, inexperienced, etc, but to my knowledge his body count is 0. Time will tell if that changes, but so far Clinton has an enormous lead.

Actually, IIRC, it's around 8 right now or something like that, because of the Yeman raid (civilians + a solider).

Although I don't think it's fair to put blame on are senators really. It was the Bush admin that gave them the faulty information as an excuse for war (and completely fethed the whole thing up, turning it into the quagmire it became).

 jasper76 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Normally you may have a point, but there is a huge amount of evidence to show that Hillary is less vile than Trump; any conclusion otherwise simply can't be based on the factual evidence. And I don't say that lightly.

One point, and this was the major objection I had against Clinton. Clinton's record comes with a body count. She is as responsible as every other Senator who voted to send our troops to Iraq. There were other politicians like Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd who stood up against the drums of war, and saw the warmongering for what it was. But Clinton didn't listen, and our fellow Americans died for her mistake, to mention nothing of Iraqi casualties, which were much much higher. And to mention nothing of the civil wars that rage on to this day because of our misadventures.

Trump cannot be blamed for the war, Clinton can. Trump may be crude, ignorant, crass, impulsive, inexperienced, etc, but to my knowledge his body count is 0. Time will tell if that changes, but so far Clinton has an enormous lead.

I don't see the connection where her voting pro war makes her responsible for the body count, that is picking details out of a much larger series of people and events. Distilling things down to 'Clinton is responsible for these deaths' is simply ignoring the realities of the situation. I could say those who voted for the war are blameless because the terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11 set those events in motion, or that the real blame is to be had on previous efforts to stabilize the middle east failing, or any number of steps in any direction. And that isn't even mentioning that Trump supported the war too.

I don't put the blame exclusively on the pro-war Senators, but rather think they share the blame with the cast of warmongers from the White House and elsewhere. I won't let them off the hook when there were eloquent and convincing Senators who saw through the bullgak (like so many other Americans did at the time), spoke out against it in the halls of power, pleaded with their fellow Senators not to make war, and were ignored by Senators like Clinton.

D-usa you sure seem to have a lot of problems with the country you voluntarily moved to.

You are completely welcome to leave.

I just don't see a logical connection where those deaths can be blamed on Clinton. We basically have Clinton's vote, and people dying in Iraq. There are a whole lot of of other events that need to be accounted for before we can reasonably assign blame.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just don't see a logical connection where those deaths can be blamed on Clinton. We basically have Clinton's vote, and people dying in Iraq. There are a whole lot of of other events that need to be accounted for before we can reasonably assign blame.

If the Senators voted against the war, there would have been no war. Pretty simple, they are culpable.

And let's not forget the national mood at the time of both the Gulf Wars.
To a very large extent it was somewhat risky to question the legality and justification of those wars - to a lesser degree the second.
People were declared unamerican and unpatriotic left and right (pun intended) for daring to question.
People lost jobs, friends and careers.
Remember the freedom fries idiocy?

 jasper76 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just don't see a logical connection where those deaths can be blamed on Clinton. We basically have Clinton's vote, and people dying in Iraq. There are a whole lot of of other events that need to be accounted for before we can reasonably assign blame.

If the Senators voted against the war, there would have been no war. Pretty simple, they are culpable.

Well if terrorists hadn't flown planes into the world trade center there would have been no war.

 LordofHats wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Christina Hoff Sommers for example has fought the good fight, done A LOT for equality,

Chrstina Hoff Sommers is a feminist in name only, and has done literally nothing for equality. She's little more than the token "feminist" of conservatism, and is better described as an anti-feminist in terms of what she actually thinks and argues for.

Well, that is your opinion, an opinion that isn't shared by The National Women's Political Caucus, Stanford, Independent Women's Forum, or the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Her band of feminism might not be the flavor of the day, but that doesn't make it "not feminism".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
[
Welcome to the New America, where if you think a female politician's record and actions are objectionable, you are sexist. And if you dare use a gender-neutral adjective to explain how you feel, you are the Patriarchy.

Never mind that Clinton described half of her opponents voters as deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, xenophobic, you name it. Nothing to see here. She gets a pass in the New America. Never mind she voted to send our brothers and sisters to die in a war for Exxon Mobil and Halliburton. She gets a pass in the New America. Never mind she takes money from repressive patriarchal regimes. She gets a pass in the New America.

I, for one, am glad we don't live in the New America, and we can still scrutinize individuals on their individual merit. I voted for Clinton because she seemed like the less risky choice, but she was a politician with a checkered record that I was not at all comfortable with, and the Democrats would do well to nominate a better candidate next time, male, female, or otherwise...and stop blaming her loss on sexism...it's too easy and shows no self-reflection.

If only my post blamed her loss on sexism.

He never stated you did? What he claimed you did, is what you actually did. I stated I had reasons not to vote for her, and for that you labeled me a sexist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Actually, IIRC, it's around 8 right now or something like that, because of the Yeman raid (civilians + a solider).

Although I don't think it's fair to put blame on are senators really. It was the Bush admin that gave them the faulty information as an excuse for war (and completely fethed the whole thing up, turning it into the quagmire it became).

Well..... let's be honest here. Before Bush ever became President Hillary was yelling about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and their willingness to use them. She stated that more than a dozen times between 1994 and 1999. She even called for action on the subject. All of that was LONG before 9-11.

 jasper76 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Normally you may have a point, but there is a huge amount of evidence to show that Hillary is less vile than Trump; any conclusion otherwise simply can't be based on the factual evidence. And I don't say that lightly.

One point, and this was the major objection I had against Clinton. Clinton's record comes with a body count. She is as responsible as every other Senator who voted to send our troops to Iraq. There were other politicians like Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd who stood up against the drums of war, and saw the warmongering for what it was. But Clinton didn't listen, and our fellow Americans died for her mistake, to mention nothing of Iraqi casualties, which were much much higher. And to mention nothing of the civil wars that rage on to this day because of our misadventures.

Trump cannot be blamed for the war, Clinton can. Trump may be crude, ignorant, crass, impulsive, inexperienced, etc, but to my knowledge his body count is 0. Time will tell if that changes, but so far Clinton has an enormous lead.

That's big reason I didn't vote for her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just don't see a logical connection where those deaths can be blamed on Clinton. We basically have Clinton's vote, and people dying in Iraq. There are a whole lot of of other events that need to be accounted for before we can reasonably assign blame.

She doubled down as Secretary of State with her actions in Lybia, though.

Relapse wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Normally you may have a point, but there is a huge amount of evidence to show that Hillary is less vile than Trump; any conclusion otherwise simply can't be based on the factual evidence. And I don't say that lightly.

One point, and this was the major objection I had against Clinton. Clinton's record comes with a body count. She is as responsible as every other Senator who voted to send our troops to Iraq. There were other politicians like Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd who stood up against the drums of war, and saw the warmongering for what it was. But Clinton didn't listen, and our fellow Americans died for her mistake, to mention nothing of Iraqi casualties, which were much much higher. And to mention nothing of the civil wars that rage on to this day because of our misadventures.

Trump cannot be blamed for the war, Clinton can. Trump may be crude, ignorant, crass, impulsive, inexperienced, etc, but to my knowledge his body count is 0. Time will tell if that changes, but so far Clinton has an enormous lead.

That's big reason I didn't vote for her.

Watch out, apparently you are part of the "patriarchy" now.

 jasper76 wrote:



Never mind that Clinton described half of her opponents voters as deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, xenophobic, you name it. Nothing to see here.

As opposed to her opponent who made remarks that actually fit all those definitions without needing exaggeration on a near weekly basis? Lets also be fair here, while a minority and not necessarily reflective of all Trump voters, there is a very real and growing segment of the voter base that composed the hard edge of Trump's electorate that actually does fit those descriptions as well, the whole alt-right that didnt exist in previous elections in anything near its present day strength.

I, for one, am glad we don't live in the New America, and we can still scrutinize individuals on their individual merit. I voted for Clinton because she seemed like the less risky choice, but she was a politician with a checkered record that I was not at all comfortable with, and the Democrats would do well to nominate a better candidate next time, male, female, or otherwise...and stop blaming her loss on sexism...it's too easy and shows no self-reflection.

while I would agree with most of this, its probably fair to say that sexism could have played a role, perhaps a marginal (or very marginal) one, but given that this election was won on the margins, perhaps not one to be ignored.


Who knows, perhaps it even influenced my vote, here I am feeling like I'm getting dragged into defending Clinton when I didnt vote for her (nor Trump) against someone who actually voted for her

She's a proven individual who isn't shy about getting us or other countries into wars of one type or another. I think she would have been more dangerous than Trump.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Her band of feminism might not be the flavor of the day, but that doesn't make it "not feminism".

It's not about what is or isn't flavor of the day.

if I object to everything the field of History is founded on, claim history as a field is just the liberal agenda trying to sabotage historians, and then label myself a Historian and sell my own brand of "Super History" that has absolutely nothing in common with "History" outside of the most general similarity that both concepts are "about stuff that happened in the past" I can call myself a historian all day long but that doesn't make it true.

Sommers cannot simultaneously declare Feminism lost and escape the label of being an Anti-Feminist, and you can't very well be something you are "anti." Basing any conception of Feminism on the work of Sommers is a trial in error and that isn't a matter of opinion. It's just who she is. She ignores literally everything the field does, proclaims it "man hating" and then goes on to proclaim there is no rampant sexism against women and that sexism against men is worse. If you're curious why you don't like modern feminism, I'd suggest the first problem is giving Sommers too much credence. Her entire mission in life is cashing pay checks via feminism bashing. Rigorous analysis and even telling the truth are not concerns for her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The National Women's Political Caucus, Stanford, Independent Women's Forum, or the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Literally anyone can join the first group, being a feminist is not a requirement. Her contributions to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are beside my point. The Independent Women's Forum can be joined by anyone and only really exists to push Sommer's brand which makes its opinion irrelevant to my point. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education can again, be joined by anyone. Being a feminist (or not) has nothing to do with membership in any of these organizations.

Relapse wrote:
She's a proven individual who isn't shy about getting us or other countries into wars of one type or another. I think she would have been more dangerous than Trump.

More dangerous than the guy who publicly advocated for nuclear war, has talked about withdrawing from NATO, has been harping about how much more we should be doing to fight terrorists in foreign civil wars on the other side of the planet, who went on Morning Joe and boasted about how he was the most militaristic candidate in the GOP primary debates, has been increasingly belligerent with Iran, the guy who advocated that the US go in and involve itself in Libya and take out Gadaffi ourselves?

Really?

Hillary Clinton would have been more dangerous than that guy?



I mean, Clinton had a deserved reputation of being a gakbag in this respect with the 2003 Iraq war...but to say that she's be more dangerous than Trump is being disingenuous methinks.

Don't forget that time he said he'd blow up Iranian sailors and that it was completely fine because "it wouldn't start a war."

 LordofHats wrote:
[if I object to everything the field of History is founded on, claim history as a field is just the liberal agenda trying to sabotage historians, and then label myself a Historian and sell my own brand of "Super History" that has absolutely nothing in common with "History" outside of the most general similarity that both concepts are "about stuff that happened in the past" I can call myself a historian all day long but that doesn't make it true.

.

I seem to remember someone challenging the Flat Earth theory that every historian knew to be true as well...... And much of that is what she does, such as challenging the often misquote of "women only make 78% of what a man does for the same work".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
[Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The National Women's Political Caucus, Stanford, Independent Women's Forum, or the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Literally anyone can join the first group, being a feminist is not a requirement. Her contributions to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are beside my point. The Independent Women's Forum can be joined by anyone and only really exists to push Sommer's brand which makes its opinion irrelevant to my point. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education can again, be joined by anyone. Being a feminist (or not) has nothing to do with membership in any of these organizations.

She's a bit more than "a member". She's on the Board of Advisors for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, served on the national advisory board for the Independent women's forum, and received an Exceptional Merit in Media Award from the National Women's Political Caucus. She's a bit more than a faceless member.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I seem to remember someone challenging the Flat Earth theory that every historian knew to be true as well......

When exactly did that happen?

And much of that is what she does, such as challenging the often misquote of "women only make 78% of what a man does for the same work".

Am I the only one that remembers her role in the gamergate debacle? Where her so-called analysis was essentially "I hate video games, but men like them and men should be able to do whatever they want without criticism, and evil evil feminists are trying to take them away"? Perhaps some of her work isn't a complete joke and goes beyond superficial "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS SUCK" ranting, but I'd be surprised if the total came to anything close a majority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mitochondria wrote:
D-usa you sure seem to have a lot of problems with the country you voluntarily moved to.

You are completely welcome to leave.

Ah yes, the classic "vote the way I want or get out" argument. Always so persuasive...

 Peregrine wrote:
...

Mitochondria wrote:
D-usa you sure seem to have a lot of problems with the country you voluntarily moved to.

You are completely welcome to leave.

Ah yes, the classic "vote the way I want or get out" argument. Always so persuasive...

I believe that statement was a bit more "think" the way I like, rather than vote, to be fair.
Obviously that's much worse, but then republicans are pretty terrible people.





Not serious btw, I'm sure some Rs are just peachy and love their kids too.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

]See conspiracy theories about a white male patriarchy.

The only conspiracy theory here is that patriarchy is just a weird thing made up by OMG TUMBLR SJW FEMINAZIS instead of an accurate description of the world.

There are countries that are run by actual patriarchies, where we can identify who the patriarchs are, where they convene, and by what institutions and mechanisms they exercise control. So if there's a patriarchy in the United States, I don't like that one bit, and I want to know who they are.

So who are the members of the patriarchy in the United States? Where do they convene? By what institutions and mechanisms do they exercise patriarchal control over us?

... ...

Trump surrounded by old white conservative men signs an executive order about abortion.

Spot the woman at the end of the line. Is she a token female? Most of the shots of this scene don't even show her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just don't see a logical connection where those deaths can be blamed on Clinton. We basically have Clinton's vote, and people dying in Iraq. There are a whole lot of of other events that need to be accounted for before we can reasonably assign blame.

The logical connection is that Trump wasn't a senator at the time, so he didn't vote for war, so Trump is better than Clinton and you have nothing to reproach yourself for by voting for him. Of course you have to ignore that Trump didn't vote against, either, which logically makes him to blame.

 cuda1179 wrote:
However, many of the major feminist mouthpieces out there (Anita Sarkeesian and Laci Green in particular) have intentionally mocked male issues, belittled them, and specifically said it's not the fault of women.

Sure. Well, they are pretty right that those issues are most of the time the fault of men. As for mocking and belittling those issues, I'm going to ask you to source this information. Also notice the big difference between drawing attention to those issues (which is good), and trying to use those issues to deflect any conversation about women's problem, while not actually caring about them (which is bad).

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm also skeptical of anyone that got more time to talk at the U.N. about how someone said she sucked on the internet than the guy that was trying to prevent starvation and genocide in his country.

Who is that guy you are talking about?

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what?

I am pretty sure that nobody would call you part of the patriarchy for voting Bernie Sanders in the primary.
You needed not to vote for Trump. d-usa explicitly said that's why he considered you part of the patriarchy.

 cuda1179 wrote:
There are many feminists that I agree with and admire. Christina Hoff Sommers for example has fought the good fight, done A LOT for equality

Name one thing that isn't “working against feminism”. If someone identify herself as a feminist but literally everything she does is to fight against feminism… yeah, no.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I seem to remember someone challenging the Flat Earth theory that every historian knew to be true as well......

Hello cuckoo-land! Is getting your facts all wrong a hobby? Do you want to know what actually made Galileo a scientist? Hint: it's not saying science is all fake.

 cuda1179 wrote:


I seem to remember someone challenging the Flat Earth theory that every historian knew to be true as well......

Except that never happened. Humans have known the Earth was round since the Greeks. Astronomy textbooks from the 14th century depict a round earth. It's not something that people just forgot (at least not anyone who would have had a say in anything any would be explorers did). I'll also point out that deciding the shape of the Earth has never been the realm of historians.

The reason everyone thought Columbus was crazy was cause he said the Earth had a much lower circumference than was thought and his critics were in fact right. It's kind of dumb luck he managed to run into another continent on his insane journey to India. Really the big question is how did Europeans not know America was there. It's not like the Vikings had already found it or anything XD

She's a bit more than "a member". She's on the Board of Advisors for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, served on the national advisory board for the Independent women's forum, and received an Exceptional Merit in Media Award from the National Women's Political Caucus. She's a bit more than a faceless member.

And yet, these things are all irrelevant to anything I've said, and membership in organizations that do not mandate being a feminist is not evidence of being one.

Do you want to know what actually made Galileo a scientist?

Well technically speaking he was a Natural Philosopher

 LordofHats wrote:

Do you want to know what actually made Galileo a scientist?

Well technically speaking he was a Natural Philosopher

I dunno, I'd call Galileo the archetype for scientists. He was among the first wave of people who brought experimentation to support hypotheses into the mainstream, whereas before it was bogged down in the methods of Aristotle where you think about something, maybe do a bit of maths, but never actually test it in a physical experiment.

Mitochondria wrote:
D-usa you sure seem to have a lot of problems with the country you voluntarily moved to.

You are completely welcome to leave.

As a natural born citizen I am also completely welcome to bitch and moan about it, serve in the civil service, lead a political party, and vote however I want

LoL, this is America. Half of us hate our leader at any given time even in a good presidency. President Obama's ratings were never higher than the day he left office, and we could start looking at his works through rose colored glasses.


I don't see any reason not to extend that privilege to the rest of the world.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
[

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what?

I am pretty sure that nobody would call you part of the patriarchy for voting Bernie Sanders in the primary.
You needed not to vote for Trump. d-usa explicitly said that's why he considered you part of the patriarchy.

[.

Thanks for proving my point. Unless I fall in line and say the woman is better, regardless of how I feel on issues or previous records or how gak BOTH candidates were, I'm "the Patriarchy". Getting a bit Orwellian in here.