Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Black men don't count as fucking white males tho, intersectionality m88y

[SalmonGod]

Ugh.... not sure how I'm going to make time to vote in the primary today, and it's pissing me off.

[Frumple]

I would expect that most women don't encounter sexism in their everyday lives. And when they do, it will be fairly inconsequential - like street harassment, which honestly barely qualifies.

Then either things are really damn different in NZ or you're basically blind*. Much of it is relatively inconsequential (but then there's plenty of cases where it's not, as well), but in the US it's also completely fucking pervasive in most areas. Gender expectations and poor reactions when they're violated, even a little, is goddamn everywhere; take a half-hour or two in an area with heavy foot traffic and pay attention to what the gender differences in posture and the way people comport themselves for one of the more blatant (and regularly overlooked) examples of it -- if I had money I could bet, I'd bet you you'll notice a difference that isn't explained by difference in bone structure or common footwear even in that short of a time frame.

You can also eyeball just about any authority position that gets approached with regularity (professors are really good targets for that if you've got access to a campus) for a while, and see how the different genders approach, and how the prof reacts, especially when the approach is counter-normative (and I can guaran-damn-tee you you'll notice what's normative for your area in short order if you've got even the most remote of observational capabilities), just as another example. Much of it is relatively small, or at least not overt, but even tiny shit adds up when it's constant, and it very much is constant.

And yes, if it somehow bloody matters, it hits just about everyone. It just hits some harder than others.

*Though, to be fair, a lot of this shit is so commonplace many people just filter it as background noise, stuff that happens all the time and is perfectly normal, even when the slants are painfully clear and the consequences fairly obvious if you think for two seconds. There ain't nothin' normal about the gender difference in inclination towards defensive posture in public places, just as a particularly painful example, and that's something a half-blind scrub drowsing off on a mall bench can notice.

[sluissa]

And this is why we need every person armed with guns. They are truly the great equalizer.

[Reelya]

There's no evidence that guns act as an equalizer in the sense that you mean.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/

A recent meta-analysis concluded what many people already knew: the availability of firearms is a strong risk factor for both homicide and suicide. But the study came to another conclusion that is rarely mentioned in the gun control debate: females are uniquely impacted by the availability of a firearm. Indeed, the study found that women with access to firearms become homicide victims at significantly higher rates than men.

It has long been recognized that higher rates of gun availability correlate with higher rates of female homicide. Women in the United States account for 84 percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world, even though they make up only a third of the developed world’s female population. And within American borders, women die at higher rates from suicide, homicide, and accidental firearm deaths in states where guns are more widely available. This is true even after controlling for factors such as urbanization, alcohol use, education, poverty, and divorce rates.

I ... guess they could be called an "equalizer" then, due to the fact that they make the female homicide rate higher, thus there's less gender difference in male/female homicides when there are guns.

-Other explanations

• Committing more violent crime

How would that not tip the scales pretty fierce?

Which is a great theory, except for the part about how it's bullshit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html

If a black person and a white person each commit a crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested. ...  for example, black people and white people smoke marijuana at similar rates, yet black people are 3.7 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession

When black people are arrested for a crime, they are convicted more often than white people arrested for the same crime. ... black defendants represent about 35% of drug arrests, 46% of those convicted of drug crimes are black.

When black people are convicted of a crime, they are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration compared to whites convicted of the same crime. ...  One study found that in a particular region blacks were incarcerated for convicted felony offenses 51% of the time while whites convicted of felonies were incarcerated 38% of the time.

Obviously, these states multiply together, since one feeds into the next. The article then goes on to estimate that if a crime is perpetrated in similar rates in the black and white communities, e.g. 1000 white crimes to 200 black crimes, given all the known stats at different stages, then over 50% of the final convicts would be black, even though blacks were no more likely to commit the offense, individually, than white people.

[Shadowlord]

Sluissa: Ah yes, One Nation under Colt, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[sluissa]

Sluissa: Ah yes, One Nation under Colt, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

They called their most famous gun a Peacemaker for a reason. 

[smjjames]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278469-dnc-chairwoman-if-up-to-me-id-exclude-independents-from



Hope she loses her florida seat....

[Sheb]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278469-dnc-chairwoman-if-up-to-me-id-exclude-independents-from



Hope she loses her florida seat....

What's wrong with that? It makes sense to me that to vote for a party's candidate, you should register for that party.

[mainiac]

Most liberals not registered as democrats hate closed primaries for the same reason that they hate caucuses.  These people have a strong heartfelt belief that the barriers to entry in democracy should be as low as possible.  That's why they advocate only open primaries with no caucuses.

[Zangi]

Voter suppression.  Can't have outsiders with different ideas voting for the wrong people.

[mainiac]

Can't have outsiders with different ideas voting for the wrong people.

Considering you are picking a standard bearer for your ideas, not the outsiders, yeah that is literally the exact fucking point.

[scriver]

I mean yeah. A party is about being a group of people with similar ideas. Why should people who are not part of the party be able to vote for who candidacies for the party?

[Andmore]

I mean yeah. A party is about being a group of people with similar ideas. Why should people who are not part of the party be able to vote for who candidacies for the party?

Because they have similar ideas?

[Sheb]

Yeah, it's not like the barrier to become a registered democrat is very high. I'm a green party member. I pay my fee. I get to vote in the leadership of the party, the platform and the composition of the various electoral lists. I'd be pretty upset if some random socialist came in and wanted to vote on who our candidates are going to be.

It doesn't seem extravagant to ask you to register as a democrat if you want to vote for the democrat candidates.

I mean yeah. A party is about being a group of people with similar ideas. Why should people who are not part of the party be able to vote for who candidacies for the party?

Because they have similar ideas?

Then why don't they join the party?