- Awards
- 19
Oh, so white male suicide is really about girls and women. And white men are killing themselves because their boss is a woman... Got it.
- Awards
- 8
That article reminds me of the butterfly effect. If only Hart hadn't been caught with Rice, he could have been president and spared us the tragedies of 9/11, the Iraq Wars, and Trump.
Unfortunately, the bad things that happen in this world feel like they're by design. The late comic Bill Hicks said it's always the good guys who are killed while the demons run amok.
- Awards
- 1
I don't know that he would have made a difference in all of these. The collapse of the Soviet block and the so-called new world order was something nobody had foreseen. If you want to talk about the butterfly effect and George W. Bush not becoming president, how about the case of Elian Gonzalez and Janet Reno angering enough Cubans to give Bush the electoral college win?
- Awards
- 19
Yes, often by design. There is a conspiracy theory about Hicks' death as well.Frank Underwood said:
People chuckle if you say "narcissist-sociopaths run the world" but it is, by definition, totally true. If you don't qualify, you get weeded out of any power-ascent very early on, because that power-ascent requires selling out to an endless number of people.
A person of competent integrity who flukishly winds up in a position of power doesn't tend to be there for very long.
- Awards
- 8
Either way, it's interesting how seemingly unconnected events can shape the future for better or worse. The sad part is you can't see how without the benefit of hindsight.
It wouldn't surprise me. IMO, nobody exposed the corruption and crimes of our government better than Hicks.
Yes. Even idealist, well intentioned politicians often end up corrupted. Getting back to Bill Hicks, he said that each new president is likely brought into a smokey room by the capitalists and war mongers who actually own and operate this country. He's shown a video of the Kennedy assassination from an angle the public hasn't seen before. The new president then dutifully capitulates to the cabal and asks what his agenda is. Considering Republicans and Democrats alike ultimately do the bidding of this group, it doesn't sound implausible to me.
Then there's people like the Bushes, Dick Cheney, and Trump who have been narcissist-sociopaths all of their lives. And what's chilling is they still have millions of supporters.
- Awards
- 19
Of course, he was just a comedian, so he doesn't seem a likely assassination target. But then, who knows? Once shouldn't assume cold logic is the preferred method of intel killers.
Although one doubts it's quite as direct as that.Frank Underwood said:
Frank Underwood said:
- Awards
- 8
He was a comedian, but he was also a truth teller. Of course, it's still possible he wasn't killed. Carlin regularly exposed our corrupt government as well, and he lived until his early 70s.
Probably not. But they get the message regardless.Snarky's Ghost said:
Getting back to #metoo, it has become acceptable for female politicians to call their detractors sexist. It doesn't even matter if the criticisms are strictly based on politics. Hillary Clinton is an obvious example, and now the newly elected governor of Michigan is saying the same thing. Gretchen Whitmer became defensive when she was accused of being too close to Blue Cross Blue Shield, which her father had previously been the head of. She said it was sexist for people to accuse her of being beholden to her father's employer. Whitmer ran in a primary against a progressive who was for single payer, which would have put Blue Cross Blue Shield out of business. Not only did the health insurance giant raise $144,000 for Whitmer, she also appointed one of their executives to her transition team. If that's not the definition of quid pro quo, I don't know what is. That's the danger in letting women hide behind faux accusations of sexism.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 8
As per usual, a third wave feminist is upset at men for "drawing lines in the sand" when it comes to misogyny. I assume this is her way of saying cat calls are on the same level as rape.
Hannah Gadsby Calls Out Hollywood’s ‘Good Men’ for Their Hot Takes on Misogyny
Hannah Gadsby has had a busy 2018. Her Netflix stand-up special Nanette inspired plenty of praise and debate, she landed a book deal, and she stole the show at this year’s Emmys. Now today, she delivered the opening remarks at The Hollywood Reporter’s 2018 Women in Entertainment gala. The comedian came armed with a speech calling out the way “good men” — particularly late-night hosts (or as she called them, “the Jimmys”) — talk about the so-called “bad men.” She called out the ever-moving “line in the sand” that men use to excuse misogyny when it hits a little too close to home and even gave that line in the sand a catchy name: Kevin.
You can watch Gadsby’s full remarks above, or read a transcript below:
I want to speak about the very big problem I have with the good men, especially the good men who take it upon themselves to talk about the bad men. I find good men talking about bad men incredibly irritating, and this is something the good men are doing a lot of at the moment. Not this moment, not this minute, because the good men don’t have to wake up early for their opportunity to monologue their hot take on misogyny. They get prime-time TV and the late shows.
I’ll tell you what, I’m sick of turning my television on at the end of the day to find anywhere up to 12 Jimmys giving me their hot take. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with the Jimmys and the Davids and the other Jimmys — good guys, great guys. Some of my best friends are Jimmy. But the last thing I need right now in this moment in history is to have to listen to men monologue about misogyny and how other men should just stop being “creepy,” as if that’s the problem. “If only these bad men just knew how not to be creepy!” Is that the problem? Men are not creepy. Do you know what’s creepy? Spiders, because we don’t know how they move. Rejecting the humanity of a woman is not creepiness; it is misogyny. So why can’t men monologue about these issues? Well they can, and they do. My problem is that according to the Jimmys, there’s only two types of bad men. There’s the Weinstein/Bill Cosby types who are so utterly horrible that they might as well be different species to the Jimmys. And then there are the FOJs: the Friends of Jimmy. These are apparently good men who misread the rules — garden-variety consent dyslexics. They have the rule book, but they just skimmed it. “Oh, that a semicolon? My bad. I thought that meant anal.” Sorry to the vegans in the room.
My issue is that when good men talk about bad men, they always ignore the line in the sand — the line in the sand that is inevitably drawn whenever a good man talks about bad men: “I am a good man. Here is the line. There are all the bad men.” The Jimmys and the good men won’t talk about this line, but we really need to talk about this line. Let’s call it Kevin. And let’s never call it that again. We need to talk about how men will draw a different line for every different occasion. They have a line for the locker room; a line for when their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters are watching; another line for when they’re drunk and fratting; another line for nondisclosure; a line for friends; and a line for foes. You know why we need to talk about this line between good men and bad men? Because it’s only good men who get to draw that line. And guess what? All men believe they are good. We need to talk about this because guess what happens when only good men get to draw that line? This world — a world full of good men who do very bad things and still believe in their heart of hearts that they are good men because they have not crossed the line, because they move the line for their own good. Women should be in control of that line, no question.
Now take everything I have said up until this point and replace “man” with “white person,” and know that if you are a white woman, you have no place drawing lines in the sand between good white people and bad white people. I encourage you to also take the time to replace “man” with “straight” or “cis” or “able-bodied” or “neurotypical,” et cetera, et cetera. Everybody believes they are fundamentally good, and we all need to believe we are fundamentally good because believing you are fundamentally good is part of the human condition. But if you have to believe someone else is bad in order to believe you are good, you are drawing a very dangerous line. In many ways, these lines in the sand we all draw are stories we tell to ourselves so we can still believe we are good people.
Source: https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/han...crG8f0aNUANn9kUwOot7tYjJR_goctPo1Xblopv3cdJCw
Hannah Gadsby Calls Out Hollywood’s ‘Good Men’ for Their Hot Takes on Misogyny
Hannah Gadsby has had a busy 2018. Her Netflix stand-up special Nanette inspired plenty of praise and debate, she landed a book deal, and she stole the show at this year’s Emmys. Now today, she delivered the opening remarks at The Hollywood Reporter’s 2018 Women in Entertainment gala. The comedian came armed with a speech calling out the way “good men” — particularly late-night hosts (or as she called them, “the Jimmys”) — talk about the so-called “bad men.” She called out the ever-moving “line in the sand” that men use to excuse misogyny when it hits a little too close to home and even gave that line in the sand a catchy name: Kevin.
You can watch Gadsby’s full remarks above, or read a transcript below:
I want to speak about the very big problem I have with the good men, especially the good men who take it upon themselves to talk about the bad men. I find good men talking about bad men incredibly irritating, and this is something the good men are doing a lot of at the moment. Not this moment, not this minute, because the good men don’t have to wake up early for their opportunity to monologue their hot take on misogyny. They get prime-time TV and the late shows.
I’ll tell you what, I’m sick of turning my television on at the end of the day to find anywhere up to 12 Jimmys giving me their hot take. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with the Jimmys and the Davids and the other Jimmys — good guys, great guys. Some of my best friends are Jimmy. But the last thing I need right now in this moment in history is to have to listen to men monologue about misogyny and how other men should just stop being “creepy,” as if that’s the problem. “If only these bad men just knew how not to be creepy!” Is that the problem? Men are not creepy. Do you know what’s creepy? Spiders, because we don’t know how they move. Rejecting the humanity of a woman is not creepiness; it is misogyny. So why can’t men monologue about these issues? Well they can, and they do. My problem is that according to the Jimmys, there’s only two types of bad men. There’s the Weinstein/Bill Cosby types who are so utterly horrible that they might as well be different species to the Jimmys. And then there are the FOJs: the Friends of Jimmy. These are apparently good men who misread the rules — garden-variety consent dyslexics. They have the rule book, but they just skimmed it. “Oh, that a semicolon? My bad. I thought that meant anal.” Sorry to the vegans in the room.
My issue is that when good men talk about bad men, they always ignore the line in the sand — the line in the sand that is inevitably drawn whenever a good man talks about bad men: “I am a good man. Here is the line. There are all the bad men.” The Jimmys and the good men won’t talk about this line, but we really need to talk about this line. Let’s call it Kevin. And let’s never call it that again. We need to talk about how men will draw a different line for every different occasion. They have a line for the locker room; a line for when their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters are watching; another line for when they’re drunk and fratting; another line for nondisclosure; a line for friends; and a line for foes. You know why we need to talk about this line between good men and bad men? Because it’s only good men who get to draw that line. And guess what? All men believe they are good. We need to talk about this because guess what happens when only good men get to draw that line? This world — a world full of good men who do very bad things and still believe in their heart of hearts that they are good men because they have not crossed the line, because they move the line for their own good. Women should be in control of that line, no question.
Now take everything I have said up until this point and replace “man” with “white person,” and know that if you are a white woman, you have no place drawing lines in the sand between good white people and bad white people. I encourage you to also take the time to replace “man” with “straight” or “cis” or “able-bodied” or “neurotypical,” et cetera, et cetera. Everybody believes they are fundamentally good, and we all need to believe we are fundamentally good because believing you are fundamentally good is part of the human condition. But if you have to believe someone else is bad in order to believe you are good, you are drawing a very dangerous line. In many ways, these lines in the sand we all draw are stories we tell to ourselves so we can still believe we are good people.
Source: https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/han...crG8f0aNUANn9kUwOot7tYjJR_goctPo1Xblopv3cdJCw
- Awards
- 1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost
Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Costs
By Gillian Tan and Katia Porzecanski December 3, 2018, 5:00 AM EST
No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on fights. Book hotel rooms on diferent foors. Avoid one-on-one meetings. In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way? Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women. Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.
Interviews with more than 30 senior executives suggest many are spooked by #MeToo and struggling to cope. “It’s creating a sense of walking on eggshells,” said David Bahnsen, a former managing director at Morgan Stanley who’s now an independent adviser overseeing more than $1.5 billion.
This is hardly a single-industry phenomenon, as men across the country check their behavior at work, to protect themselves in the face of what they consider unreasonable political correctness -- or to simply do the right thing. The upshot is forceful on Wall Street, where women are scarce in the upper ranks. The industry has also long nurtured a culture that keeps harassment complaints out of the courts and public eye, and has so far avoided a mega-scandal like the one that has engulfed Harvey Weinstein.
Now, more than a year into the #MeToo movement -- with its devastating revelations of harassment and abuse in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and beyond -- Wall Street risks becoming more of a boy’s club, rather than less of one. “Women are grasping for ideas on how to deal with it, because it is afecting our careers,” said Karen Elinski, president of the Financial Women’s Association and a senior vice president at Wells Fargo & Co. “It’s a real loss.” There’s a danger, too, for companies that fail to squash the isolating backlash and don’t take steps to have top managers be open about the issue and make it safe for everyone to discuss it, said Stephen Zweig, an employment attorney with Ford Harrison. “If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,” he said, “those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint.”
Channeling Pence
While the new personal codes for dealing with #MeToo have only just begun to ripple, the shift is already palpable, according to the people interviewed, who declined to be named. They work for hedge funds, law firms, banks, private equity firms and investment-management firms. For obvious reasons, few will talk openly about the issue. Privately, though, many of the men interviewed acknowledged they’re channeling Pence, saying how uneasy they are about being alone with female colleagues, particularly youthful or attractive ones, fearful of the rumor mill or of, as one put it, the potential liability.
A manager in infrastructure investing said he won’t meet with female employees in rooms without windows anymore; he also keeps his distance in elevators. A late-40-something in private equity said he has a new rule, established on the advice of his wife, an attorney: no business dinner with a woman 35 or younger.
The changes can be subtle but insidious, with a woman, say, excluded from casual after-work drinks, leaving male colleagues to bond, or having what should be a private meeting with a boss with the door left wide open.
‘Not That Hard’
On Wall Street as elsewhere, reactions to #MeToo can smack of paranoia, particularly given the industry’s history of protecting its biggest revenue generators.
“Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.”
There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.
Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”
That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”
In January, as #MeToo was gathering momentum, Biscardi did away with the late-night, open-bar gathering he’d hosted for years in his penthouse suite during Context Capital’s annual conference at the Fontainebleau Miami Beach. “Given the fact that women are in the minority at our events, we want to make sure that the environment is always welcoming and comfortable. We felt that eliminating the after-party was necessary to remain consistent with that goal.”
In this charged environment, the question is how the response to #MeToo might actually end up hurting women’s progress. Given the male dominance in Wall Street’s top jobs, one of the most pressing consequences for women is the loss of male mentors who can help them climb the ladder.
“There aren’t enough women in senior positions to bring along the next generation all by themselves,” said Lisa Kaufman, chief executive officer of LaSalle Securities. “Advancement typically requires that someone at a senior level knows your work, gives you opportunities and is willing to champion you within the firm. It’s hard for a relationship if the senior person is unwilling to spend one-on-one time with a more junior person.”
Men have to step up, she said, and “not let fear be a barrier.”
— With assistance by Max Abelson, and Sonali Basak
Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Costs
By Gillian Tan and Katia Porzecanski December 3, 2018, 5:00 AM EST
No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on fights. Book hotel rooms on diferent foors. Avoid one-on-one meetings. In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way? Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women. Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.
Interviews with more than 30 senior executives suggest many are spooked by #MeToo and struggling to cope. “It’s creating a sense of walking on eggshells,” said David Bahnsen, a former managing director at Morgan Stanley who’s now an independent adviser overseeing more than $1.5 billion.
Now, more than a year into the #MeToo movement -- with its devastating revelations of harassment and abuse in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and beyond -- Wall Street risks becoming more of a boy’s club, rather than less of one. “Women are grasping for ideas on how to deal with it, because it is afecting our careers,” said Karen Elinski, president of the Financial Women’s Association and a senior vice president at Wells Fargo & Co. “It’s a real loss.” There’s a danger, too, for companies that fail to squash the isolating backlash and don’t take steps to have top managers be open about the issue and make it safe for everyone to discuss it, said Stephen Zweig, an employment attorney with Ford Harrison. “If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,” he said, “those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint.”
Channeling Pence
While the new personal codes for dealing with #MeToo have only just begun to ripple, the shift is already palpable, according to the people interviewed, who declined to be named. They work for hedge funds, law firms, banks, private equity firms and investment-management firms. For obvious reasons, few will talk openly about the issue. Privately, though, many of the men interviewed acknowledged they’re channeling Pence, saying how uneasy they are about being alone with female colleagues, particularly youthful or attractive ones, fearful of the rumor mill or of, as one put it, the potential liability.
A manager in infrastructure investing said he won’t meet with female employees in rooms without windows anymore; he also keeps his distance in elevators. A late-40-something in private equity said he has a new rule, established on the advice of his wife, an attorney: no business dinner with a woman 35 or younger.
The changes can be subtle but insidious, with a woman, say, excluded from casual after-work drinks, leaving male colleagues to bond, or having what should be a private meeting with a boss with the door left wide open.
‘Not That Hard’
On Wall Street as elsewhere, reactions to #MeToo can smack of paranoia, particularly given the industry’s history of protecting its biggest revenue generators.
“Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.”
There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.
Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”
That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”
In January, as #MeToo was gathering momentum, Biscardi did away with the late-night, open-bar gathering he’d hosted for years in his penthouse suite during Context Capital’s annual conference at the Fontainebleau Miami Beach. “Given the fact that women are in the minority at our events, we want to make sure that the environment is always welcoming and comfortable. We felt that eliminating the after-party was necessary to remain consistent with that goal.”
In this charged environment, the question is how the response to #MeToo might actually end up hurting women’s progress. Given the male dominance in Wall Street’s top jobs, one of the most pressing consequences for women is the loss of male mentors who can help them climb the ladder.
“There aren’t enough women in senior positions to bring along the next generation all by themselves,” said Lisa Kaufman, chief executive officer of LaSalle Securities. “Advancement typically requires that someone at a senior level knows your work, gives you opportunities and is willing to champion you within the firm. It’s hard for a relationship if the senior person is unwilling to spend one-on-one time with a more junior person.”
Men have to step up, she said, and “not let fear be a barrier.”
— With assistance by Max Abelson, and Sonali Basak
- Awards
- 19
No one wants nervous men to get in the way of the Gender Armageddon we're all hoping for.
What about women who lie? Why does no one want to address that? I guess it just doesn't happen.
For one thing, no they don't. Many, many people are quite comfortable being evil and consciously knowing it.
So it's up to men not to be guilty. Got it.
What about women who lie? Why does no one want to address that? I guess it just doesn't happen.
Until you get sanctioned or sued for something you didn't do.
- Awards
- 1
That is why in the "Baby, It's Cold Outside" thread, I posted the link about the Salem Witch Trials.
- Awards
- 44
Hannah Gadsby said:
Yet it's the raison d'être of her article.
And, for a large proportion of users, the entire movement.
- Awards
- 19
The entire focus of the movement is to indeed remove the line in the sand between good men and bad. And this isn't new -- the "All Men Are Pigs" sentiment is 50 years old. Only back then, people used to laugh at it. Today, we know they're serious.
#MeToo and feminism in general today are endlessly trying to tell us that the privilege of the top 1% trickles down to all men, while the guilt of the bottom percentage of rapey men trickles up to all men, too.
Why is that necessary, one wonders?
There is a very common belief today that if all men could just be eradicated, then world peace would quickly be achieved. When you point out that women kill their offspring at a far higher rate than men (even when the fathers are in the household) they quickly blame it on patriarchal triggering, so women only kill their children because of emotional scarring from men. So that's men fault, too.
As a leftist and an egalitarianist (y'know... more or less) myself, I've always been sympathetic to the cause of women's rights, but it's become about something else nowadays. One begins to realize all the intricate new ways constantly coming down the pike to blame men for the most bizarre things is now just crazy, and more about "look at me" narcissism than it is justice or safety for women. Even TeenVogue, which has become an important online political presence in the last couple of years, ran an op-ed piece a few months ago which stated that innocent men being brought down with false charges was acceptable because it was needed to "more quickly overthrow the patriarchy."
All of which hurts women who've actually been raped or assaulted or genuinely sexually harassed. But no one seems interested in that. Real rape cases involve details specific to that case, and are therefore less exploitable rhetorically; but bringing down someone who's innocent sends a clearer message: We Are in Control, and it doesn't really matter what you do or don't do, whether you're innocent or guilty.
Why else has it been necessary to lie about rape statistics for 40 years? It's not anti-bad men; it's anti-men. And today, they're pretty close to admitting it.
Society tends to view women as being the caretakers, but there are actually very few animal species which are genuinely matriarchal. Because males tend to fare far worse in those than females do in patriarchies.
#MeToo and feminism in general today are endlessly trying to tell us that the privilege of the top 1% trickles down to all men, while the guilt of the bottom percentage of rapey men trickles up to all men, too.
Why is that necessary, one wonders?
There is a very common belief today that if all men could just be eradicated, then world peace would quickly be achieved. When you point out that women kill their offspring at a far higher rate than men (even when the fathers are in the household) they quickly blame it on patriarchal triggering, so women only kill their children because of emotional scarring from men. So that's men fault, too.
As a leftist and an egalitarianist (y'know... more or less) myself, I've always been sympathetic to the cause of women's rights, but it's become about something else nowadays. One begins to realize all the intricate new ways constantly coming down the pike to blame men for the most bizarre things is now just crazy, and more about "look at me" narcissism than it is justice or safety for women. Even TeenVogue, which has become an important online political presence in the last couple of years, ran an op-ed piece a few months ago which stated that innocent men being brought down with false charges was acceptable because it was needed to "more quickly overthrow the patriarchy."
All of which hurts women who've actually been raped or assaulted or genuinely sexually harassed. But no one seems interested in that. Real rape cases involve details specific to that case, and are therefore less exploitable rhetorically; but bringing down someone who's innocent sends a clearer message: We Are in Control, and it doesn't really matter what you do or don't do, whether you're innocent or guilty.
Why else has it been necessary to lie about rape statistics for 40 years? It's not anti-bad men; it's anti-men. And today, they're pretty close to admitting it.
Society tends to view women as being the caretakers, but there are actually very few animal species which are genuinely matriarchal. Because males tend to fare far worse in those than females do in patriarchies.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Awards
- 8
I had no idea who Hannah Gadsby was until I came across that article. I decided to look her up, and the first thing I found was a video of her literally admitting she's anti-man. She tried to disguise it as a joke, but I never heard a punchline. She then proceeded to say that men don't know what jokes are, even though her whole "act" was more of a personal statement.Snarky's Ghost said:
My sense of humor's just fine. I'm overweight, yet I've laughed at fat jokes. However, I can discern between insults used for comedic effect and actual hatred being passed off as comedy.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 19
I'll repeat Betty Eadie's description of the glass ceiling in Heaven (f you don't believe in the Afterlife, then ignore this) but Eadie wrote a book in the '90s about her lengthy 1973 Near Death Experience. She went thru the usual dark tunnel with the bright light at the end, entered a garden, then underwent an incredibly rapid Life Review, and later went before a Counsel of 13 -- all men (apparently, The Other Side still has a gender duality of sorts). As an old second wave '60s feminist, she was kind of unsettled by this and inquired about the lack of women.
It was explained to her that men and women have different roles. Women are by nature more restless and dissatisfied in their situations, while men are more complacent, and that women are dominant in certain ways such that men are more emotionally impacted by women than women are by men --- and so "when evil overtakes the women, the men will quickly follow."
The point seemed to be not that women should be abused or exploited, but that when women are politically powerful as men or even more so, she tastes blood in the water and then nothing is ever enough, as if a piranha instinct kicks in. (Even paradise wasn't enough for Eve, and Adam immediately took the bait). So if women are allowed everything and are not "contained" to a degree, disaster looms.
And Miss Eadie reluctantly saw the truth in this explanation.
I'm sure if they succeed in getting men off the planets, centuries later women will still be blaming their own continued violence, avarice and greed on the now non-existent men and the triggering the former patriarchy left behind.
It was explained to her that men and women have different roles. Women are by nature more restless and dissatisfied in their situations, while men are more complacent, and that women are dominant in certain ways such that men are more emotionally impacted by women than women are by men --- and so "when evil overtakes the women, the men will quickly follow."
The point seemed to be not that women should be abused or exploited, but that when women are politically powerful as men or even more so, she tastes blood in the water and then nothing is ever enough, as if a piranha instinct kicks in. (Even paradise wasn't enough for Eve, and Adam immediately took the bait). So if women are allowed everything and are not "contained" to a degree, disaster looms.
And Miss Eadie reluctantly saw the truth in this explanation.
I'm sure if they succeed in getting men off the planets, centuries later women will still be blaming their own continued violence, avarice and greed on the now non-existent men and the triggering the former patriarchy left behind.
- Awards
- 19
…. and I'm sure planet will soon become planets, as the misogyny of Saturn begins impacting the white women of the western world.
- Awards
- 8
VIRGINIA TEACHER FIRED FOR REFUSING TO USE TRANSGENDER STUDENT'S NEW PRONOUN: 'I MISS THE FEMALE VERSION OF THE STUDENT'
A high school teacher in Virginia has been fired after refusing to refer to one of his students using his preferred pronoun.
Peter Vlaming, a French teacher at West Point High School, was fired after the School Board voted 5-0 in favor of terminating his role.
Read more: Trump administration moves to eliminate transgender definition, define sex by genitals at birth
The decision was made after Vlaming disobeyed orders to refer to a ninth-grade student as a male following his gender transition. The case is believed to be the first of its kind in the state, reports the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Vlaming, who has worked at the school for seven years, told the school his Christian faith prevented him from using the preferred pronoun of the student he still saw as female.
“I’m totally happy to use the new name,” Vlaming told WWBT. “I’m happy to avoid female pronouns not to offend because I’m not here to provoke…but I can’t refer to a female as a male, and a male as a female in good conscience and faith.”
The school recommended the 47-year-old be fired for violating school system’s nondiscrimination and harassment policies. The administrators also agreed with the pupil and his family that Vlaming’s treatment of him amounted to discrimination.
“That discrimination then leads to creating a hostile learning environment, West Point schools Superintendent Laura Abel told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “And the student had expressed that. The parent had expressed that. They felt disrespected.”
During the public hearing on the case, the school's principal, Jonathan Hochman, testified that Vlaming said that he “very much liked and missed the female version of the student,” reports ABC News.
Following the decision, Shawn Voyles, Vlaming’s attorney, said that his client’s rights as a teacher should also be considered.
“Tolerance is a two-way street,” Volyes told WWBT. “My client respects this student’s rights; he is simply asking that his rights be respected as well…The student is absolutely free to identify as the student pleases. The school board adopted one viewpoint and required Mr. Vlaming, at the cost of his job, to repeat that ideology, repeat that viewpoint. That’s where it’s compelled speech. That’s where it violates his First Amendment right he still retains as a public employee."
The act of purposely referring to someone with their pretransition pronouns is known as misgendering and can be considered a form of hate crime.
In November, Twitter updated its terms and services warning users who purposely misgender or “deadname”—referring to people by the identity they used before their transition—on the social media site that they face permanent suspension as part of a move to curb trans abuse on the platform.
“We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanise, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category,” Twitter said in a statement.
“This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”
Source: https://www.newsweek.com/peter-vlam...acher-fired-misgender-student-refused-1248615
A high school teacher in Virginia has been fired after refusing to refer to one of his students using his preferred pronoun.
Peter Vlaming, a French teacher at West Point High School, was fired after the School Board voted 5-0 in favor of terminating his role.
Read more: Trump administration moves to eliminate transgender definition, define sex by genitals at birth
The decision was made after Vlaming disobeyed orders to refer to a ninth-grade student as a male following his gender transition. The case is believed to be the first of its kind in the state, reports the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Vlaming, who has worked at the school for seven years, told the school his Christian faith prevented him from using the preferred pronoun of the student he still saw as female.
“I’m totally happy to use the new name,” Vlaming told WWBT. “I’m happy to avoid female pronouns not to offend because I’m not here to provoke…but I can’t refer to a female as a male, and a male as a female in good conscience and faith.”
The school recommended the 47-year-old be fired for violating school system’s nondiscrimination and harassment policies. The administrators also agreed with the pupil and his family that Vlaming’s treatment of him amounted to discrimination.
“That discrimination then leads to creating a hostile learning environment, West Point schools Superintendent Laura Abel told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “And the student had expressed that. The parent had expressed that. They felt disrespected.”
During the public hearing on the case, the school's principal, Jonathan Hochman, testified that Vlaming said that he “very much liked and missed the female version of the student,” reports ABC News.
Following the decision, Shawn Voyles, Vlaming’s attorney, said that his client’s rights as a teacher should also be considered.
“Tolerance is a two-way street,” Volyes told WWBT. “My client respects this student’s rights; he is simply asking that his rights be respected as well…The student is absolutely free to identify as the student pleases. The school board adopted one viewpoint and required Mr. Vlaming, at the cost of his job, to repeat that ideology, repeat that viewpoint. That’s where it’s compelled speech. That’s where it violates his First Amendment right he still retains as a public employee."
The act of purposely referring to someone with their pretransition pronouns is known as misgendering and can be considered a form of hate crime.
In November, Twitter updated its terms and services warning users who purposely misgender or “deadname”—referring to people by the identity they used before their transition—on the social media site that they face permanent suspension as part of a move to curb trans abuse on the platform.
“We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanise, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category,” Twitter said in a statement.
“This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”
Source: https://www.newsweek.com/peter-vlam...acher-fired-misgender-student-refused-1248615
- Awards
- 1
This is silly, claiming that the Christian faith has any position on pronouns or language. If anything, bad editing and contradictory written accounts of the same facts are what gave birth to the Bible. A he for a she is nothing.
- Awards
- 8
It's silly in that regard, yes. But regardless of why he's uncomfortable using male pronouns, I still think he should have the right not to use them. He even said he was happy to call the student by his new name and to avoid using female pronouns, which sounds sufficient to me. He said he wasn't trying to provoke the student, which I believe. If he had been taunting him for being transgender, continued calling him a girl, or continued calling him by his previous name, his firing for discrimination and harassment would make much more sense to me.