This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Liberal/Conservative Divide Only Grows Uglier
It would be easy for me to dismiss Obama supporters as mentally defective but for one inconvenient fact: my mother, sharp as a tack at 92, is voting for him. And so is my sister, a San Francisco attorney who is no slouch in the brains department. I’m not sure where my brother, a municipal employee, stands, but neither am I eager to find out. There is no bridging the political gap between us, and so we simply avoid discussing politics. The same goes for old friends, although newer ones are another matter. One of them walked out on our dinner together in a huff when an innocuous remark I’d made about Abe Lincoln evidently bruised his self-righteously liberal, morally perfect heart . Good riddance. It is far better friends than he that I am worried about. Will they draw the line when I let slip my support for the right to bear arms, even concealed? A few of my wife’s closest friends are unmitigated liberals, and it’s unclear how much longer we’ll be able to tiptoe around the political rough edges when we get together socially.
The truce with my siblings and mother has held, but not without strain. When the latter referred to the eminently decent Mitt Romney as “a jerk,” I returned fire with an over-the-top fusillade of anti-Obama invective. That was a month ago, and we haven’t talked about the election since. Nor do I plan to rub it in after Romney wins on Tuesday — an outcome I believe is inevitable because the nation has been wallowing for nearly five years in an officially undeclared, if not to say brazenly-lied-about, state of recession. Romney voters will have to stifle the hubris, though, since there is no way he will be able to reverse the country’s inexorable slide into economic darkness. To be fair, I should state that Obama is no more culpable for the abysmal state of the economy than Bill Clinton was praiseworthy for its resurgence during his presidency. He got lucky, is all, while Obama inherited a disaster two generations in the making. Economic cycles are far bigger than the presidency, and this one is going to take its ruinous course no matter who is in the White House.
Dating Game’s Top ‘No-No’
In the meantime, the political gap between liberals and conservatives can only continue to widen. And to grow uglier. This unfortunate trend was underscored by a recent Wall Street Journal story that focused on dating services. It seems the matchmaking business has declined in recent years because clients seeking mates are increasingly putting political compatibility at the top of their lists. “In this neck-and-neck, ideologically fraught election season, politically active singles won’t cross party lines,” the Journal noted. “The result is a dating desert populated by reds and blues who refuse to make purple.” So much for romance these days. Time was when smoking, drinking, religion, education level and physical attractiveness were the main concerns of men and women looking for love; now, apparently, a date-seeker’s political views trumps them all.
Until a crisis equal to the Great Depression arrives, liberals and conservatives are unlikely to bury the hatchet. For voters on either side of the divide, the stakes in this election will not seem to have been exaggerated; for they involve nothing less than a fight for the nation’s economic well-being – nay, for its very soul. Over the next four years, and probably long thereafter, moral and financial jeopardy will confront each of us in ways that seem likely to widen political divisions. Putting aside the wild card of Iran, one of the most difficult issues we face will entail putting public employees’ pension and health care benefits on a sound financial basis. The unions will claim, correctly, that there is no legal precedent for denying workers benefits that were promised them when they were hired. Their employers will claim, also correctly, that the money simply isn’t there. But anyone who thinks the Federal Government will be able to “solve” this problem simply by printing money is in for a rude awakening.
The financial liability is in fact so large that attempting to monetize it would be tantamount to hyperinflating. If, say, the Government were to offer lump-sum settlements averaging $150,000, the money could conceivably be worthless on delivery, since the actual disbursement of digital cash would be taken as a sign by the rest of us that Uncle Sam was on the hook for everyone’s financial needs. If the Government were instead to assume responsibility for years of scheduled payments in “real” dollars, taxpayers would eventually riot in the streets. No matter how you work the numbers, there is no easy way out, at least not using monetary shenanigans. The very clear implication is that the “solution” will come in the form of a dramatically lowered standard of living for most Americans.
Pensions Too Big to Bail Out
What is the dollar amount of the unfunded liability? Many hundreds of trillions of dollars, according to some published estimates. Consider that a bankrupt Flint, Michigan, under the direction of a conservator, has cut its budget to the bone to effect annual savings of around $10 million. But the long-term structural shortfall imposed by Flint’s retirement promises is on the order of $600 million dollars over the next 25 years. Of course, Detroit’s long-term problems are orders of magnitude larger, and New York City’s vastly larger still — too big, in the aggregate, for even the U.S. Government to fix. Or rather, pretend to fix, since that’s all that the would-be fixers have been doing all along. Yes, the bailout has been a fraud – a con-game made easier by the fact that most of the bailout “money” has gone to sustain the illusion that the assets of our biggest banks net out to a positive number. But there can be no such shell game when it comes time to send out pension and healthcare checks after the coffers of states and cities have gone empty. Paying for the lives of retired workers will require coughing up real dollars each and every month, not virtual ones such as are posted as “reserves” by the banks. And that’s why it will be impossible for the Federal Government to pretend, as it has with the banks, that the bailout is other than a charade.
Under the circumstances, hostility can only grow between liberals and conservatives, haves and have-nots, public and private workers, taxpayers and recipients. We wish Mr. Romney luck, but he’ll have his hands full merely trying to keep blood from running in the streets, never mind returning America to prosperity.
»
- advertisements -
I would rather have 4 years of Obama than potentially 8 years of Romney. In Obama's final 4 years he is not trying to get re-elected. Whereas Romney would finish the gutting of America in order to win a second 4 year term by keeping campaign promises to the powers that be.
But since I am in the top 0.1% in the brain department I can understand why Ackerman would differ.
For some strange reason the word clueless comes to mind...
You obviously inhereted your money
I obviously inherited bankster debts while working hard as a small business owner.
I suggest you not vote in Romney and make Obama YOUR president by forcing him to eat his peas and leading him away from mindless welfare policies.
But if that still does not turn you on just ring up Fat Bastard over at Austin Powers to come sodomize your children because I for one would prefer Goldman Sachs et al. not do so too mine under a Romney administration that is beholden to them.
Yoo obvioousley didn't winn the grade sicks fucing speeeling bea...
Unless the money all came from his mom. If it came from his dad, it would be inhiseted...
I think inherited (with an 'i' instead of an 'e') is a cool word - maybe could mean he married rich.
There are bound to be divisions when there are two false choices.
I find it comical that anyone has passion for any candidate in our non-representational kleptoligarchy.
Both sides will continue to collude to drive the nation further down the road to perdition because politicians are professional sophists and equivocators.
The fork in the road leads to the parallel highways in the same direction that come together just before the bridge to nowhere falls off into the chasm of fascism.
This whole election farce reminds me of the curious way in which slaves, brutally treated by their master, would nevertheless argue with other slaves over whose master was better.
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." —Daniel Webster
"There are bound to be divisions when there are two false choices."
The divisions would be a lot deeper and more violent if we were presented with real choices.
This strange notion common on this board that somehow there would be peace and prosperity if only we had a real choice is remarkably naive and totally unsupported by data.
Is it so unreasonable to you for individuals, as a basic starting-point, to see through obvious lies, and liars, and reject all political illusion-making manipulations, who's intended purpose is to achieve devious self-aggrandising and self-enriching ends, at private expense and liability, in order to exert power over the lazy and the stupid?
If so go watch primetime TV, as I seriously doubt people on this board believe in utopian inevitable peace and prosperity via personal choices, but they certainly are entitled to be unreliant on liars and manipulators, and free of concerted twisted Govt propagandising and nefarious impositions and suppression.
Is it actually a notion that this would bring peace and proserity, or a notion that it might at least end the current system?
Can't say I have seen much of the view you claim is prevalent. Lots of people want another alternative, but I'm not sure why you equate that to a belief that it will magically lead to peace and prosperity. I would say that most recognize it would lead to hard times in the short run.
Out of curiosity what data do you have to the contrary which you think shows it would not?
Obama is a cult. Plenty of intelligent people supported Hitler, Stalin, Mao and various cults.
Just because they got a PHD/good job doesn't mean they won't fall for the BS of a charismatic SOB.
People have their (most of the time unfounded) belief and they stick to them no matter what because they think it's a ``team`` and that they are part of it. Most people are lazy/stupid so they don't do a real research of their own beliefs/people they support... and when truth comes out they don't like, they just deny or make an excuse for it.
And as for women... most women/liberals think that the government is our big mommy who just want what's good for their kids and want to protect us from ourselves, ignoring all what history has taught us. Hell one of my mother's friend is a freaking AMERICAN INDIAN... and she still loves total government control of everything and is especially against guns... SEEMS TO ME... that I don't know, BEING A FUCKING INDIAN, she would know better??? But again, I've seen neo-nazis jews...
when/if you ever get enough brain cells working in tandem to make the connection between armed men, crime, and violence against women, then you MAY begin to understand why some women are not in favour of armed men.
you know all those guys that grab a satchel of weaponry & head to the workspace of the partner who recently decided enough is enough & left him?
yeah.
Women kill men all the time. They just happen to be in the womb. Furthermore, it's a horrifying gruesome death they suffer--one you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.
then you MAY begin to understand why some women are not in favor of armed men.
No problem, disarm the whole fucking nation, total gun ban.
Then criminals will be the only armed men.
Good luck.
And if I happen across you being assaulted, tough shit, I wouldn't cross the street to help you. You took away the only defensive force I had, a gun.
I'll call the cops for you and be on my way. It'll take 'em 15 minutes to get there. You'll probably be dead 10 minutes by then.
thanks for illustrating my point made above.
that's a 3 year old's tantrum - take yer balls and go home, fuck it.
amrkns could use some maturity, be it age or mindset - but we already know this, look at how they act in the world. . .
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -- it is FORCE!" -- George Washington
Cathartes Aura said:
Please file the following comment under "watch your soapbox". It not intended as criticism, just a reminder that, irrespective of whether one is born with a dingaling or a hoo hah, we are all prone to typical human foibles.
[Management reminds readers to keep their sense of humor engaged until the comment is over and has come to a full stop. Failure to do so could result in sudden offense and, in rare cases, sanctimony.]
Cath, you are the last person I would expect to use such a blatant and, yes, sexist stereotype. I have never made the connection between armed men, crime, and violence against women. I think it is due to cognitive difficulties which prevent me from equating correlation with causation. I suspect it may have something to do with all the angel dust and LSD I did in high school and college but, due to my cognitive difficulties, I can never be sure.
Surprisingly (and thus not incessantly), rather than the rational remark I have come to expect from you, this was more of an emotional response. Of course, it's not unusual for emotions to run a little high as that time of the month draws near.
Yes, most of us get a little emotional as it gets closer to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. [Ha! I'll bet you thought I was talking about something else.] Just try to remember that when someone says, "all [arbitrary grouping of people] are [arbitrary characteristic]," the intelligent response is not, "yeah, well all [different arbitrary grouping of people] are [different arbitrary characteristic]."
Oh snapped. To atone for your lapse into excessively ridiculous stereotyping, you must now watch this brief (2 min 20 sec) video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA3JUpQzOek
Remember, keep smiling until the comment has come to a full stop.
THAT MADE MY DAY................... YA'LL ARE BRUTALISING ME!!! YAY ENCORE
oooh, you always make me laugh, and in the weirdest ways. . . that was suitably. . . um. . . yeah.
as to your other points, well, let's just say I've done more research on this subject, and perhaps more thinking, than most here.
http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Famili...
there are a few more stats at the link, but I wanted to get some here to make my point. . .
now, this may not feel like a big deal to many here, but I can assure you that the average woman is socialised towards this awareness, in the same way they are taught to fear rape, etc. - this is not anything I condone, I'm merely pointing out what culture promotes in the "war between men & women" - alright?
culture /society does not seek peace, it seeks friction. and it trains up "men" for its wars, both at home, and abroad.
same as it ever was.
(and, as before, you picked up a downvote, so I'm giving you the opposite, I'm contrary like that, heh)
Why do I get the notion (when looking at agenda driven statistics) I must parse the statistic, from the actual language used in that statistics presentation? In yours, husband just became and/or "ïntimate partner" which is not gender specific for instance.
I think we could trade studies & stats all day long from various sources but here's one I like...
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.(23)
* As many as 561 times a day, women use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault.(143)
Makes your 1,247 figure per year pale in comparison does it not?
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
I believe you are concentrating on one grain of sand on a vast beach Cat. How many women, married to men, use a gun to protect themselves from the man they are married to, per year?
Oh...and those first greenies you recieved when conversing with me up thread...were mine. I'm contrary like that too sometimes.
Sounds like someone had a bad experience and extrapolated from there. The salient point is that in all such instances it takes two to Tango. I always suspect any assertion that just one person performed said Tango. Though some females (a smallish minority) tend to pretend it's possible that they played no part at all in it.
Blaming one person of the opposite-gender in a one-on-one conflict is hardly likely to be objective, truthful nor the final-word regarding what actually transpired, nor the cause-effect basis for what can result.
If you don't like males, fine, they quite possibly don't like you either. Don't co-habit with them if you insist on looking down on them, and definitely don't stir them up, as all humans are glorified primates first and foremost, always will be, and primal responses are never far away (and never will be).
Basic civil behaviour is the social veneer to keep that in-check, and it generally does that very well, but if you choose to disregard this civil veneer via doing and/or saying things that you absolutely know is strongly corrosive to that social veneer needed between males and females, or foolishly disregard it, then don't be surprised if you find more direct and possibly violent primate responses taking its place fairly quickly.
This is not rocket science.
Although a minority of females seem to want to pretend they play no contributing role if a primal or direct response occurs. And/or they do not wish to admit to themselves more generally that our manicured civil animal origins, and physical basis, can not be fundamentally changed by mere verbal tut-tuts, or warped cultural or intelectual expectations, without due regard to the reality of what we actually are, as an animal species.
Some primates are nasty, male or female, and everyone reading this, male or female, has encountered their fair-share of both, enough to know, if they are honest, that males are certainly only half of the story.
it would appear we agree Element,
many's the time I've used that same argument here when men list all their grievances against bitches, both in and out of relationships. don't like 'em? don't hang with them. works for "both sides" right?
as to your speculating of "bad experiences" - once again, as I've said many many times here, I've worked with varying degrees of "men" all my life, by choice, successfully. the majority of my close friends are male, always have been. I don't frequent many places on the internet, but I do here, which is overwhelmingly men-flavoured - and yes, I do argue here, but so do most, yes? there ARE some sycophant twtter-types here, but many come here to also argue their points. so please, no armchair analysis needed.
look forward to seeing that argument used more often when the bitching 'bout the bitches occurs in threads, it's a good one.
I must be memory lapsing or something, I honestly can't remember a single thread where zh-ers have ever gone on an anti female rant-fest. You sure you're not imagining this anti-female stuff? I don’t remember anyone ever making an argument against females. Maybe in China, Greece or Pakistan that happens, not seen it on zh though.
you're hilarious, thanks.
see ya round.
Do you find it difficult to provide documentation of that which existed only in your imagination?
It's not just in CA's imagination. I was going to repond to Element's post and dig through and pull out all the misogynistic comments I've seen in the last month, and and then I thought, what the fuck, who cares. These men obviously have no idea how women think and feel, meanwhile spending the vast majority of their time mansplaining how we should just STFU and sit in the corner or something.
More than anything, this election season has me wondering: what the fuck is up with all these dudes that are so amazingly blind to issues that matter to women?
And you, as a self-proclaimed anarchist: do you think women can be "legitimately raped" and if not, why the hell haven't I seen a single ZH guy standing up for women given all this rightwing crazy talk?
I've never understood the logic of it.
Blame an inanimate object for a miniscule statistic on the one hand, while completely ignoring the outsized benefit to society at large with the other.
Its like railing against rope because rope is sometimes used to strangle people and ignoring the fact rope is used to productive and good purpose across the globe.
People are people as you say.
Driven by all the same human emotions, male or female makes no difference really. I do admit males are more aggressive which is why I'm a strong advocate for women becoming interested in protecting themselves. It used to be that when the brother/father/cousin found out a woman was being abused they "handled it" which I prefer for a host of reasons. Now, its just call the cops so they don't get thrown in jail for beating the shit out of the abuser.
Independence, for good or ill, made it this way. Total independence works to remedy it. All "my ladies" are strong willed independent thinkers so the whole victimhood theology of life has never gone over well with them either...lol.
We certainly agree there, it seems much of the occasional inter-gender conflict rotates around various forms of dependence, from both genders.
Indeed sir.
cat, your statistic "In 2000, 1,247 women, ... were killed by their intimate partners"
should perhaps be put in context. from wikipedia (I know): "There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths. In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm."
Cat, in all this violence, guns or not guns, aren't women a fraction of the victims?
Does this really warrant a socialization of the average woman toward "this awareness"?
According to the stats you could make average women aware that a man with a gun with which they are intimate is much more likely to have an accident with it, or blow his own brain out or kill someone else than her.
In fact if you look at incredible number of accidents - they might even account for a sizable part of the female deaths. And they sometimes involve children of both sexes.
On the related matter of the "war between men & women" please also remember that in the US, UK and Scandinavian cultures it's the (now third-generation) feminists that are driving a cultural offensive against men. This is very well visible in the new divorce culture and the very socialization drives you are describing.
IMHO a drive versus safety in the use of firearms is more warranted than a drive vs awareness of how dangerous armed men are for their gfs, female relatives and so on.
Ghordius,
there's a hair-trigger here at ZH whenever any stats related to women are brought up. . . for the record, I didn't do the research nor come up with the stats, I merely used them, belatedly, in response to what has been posted on this thread - I used them to illustrate my point, which is that women are socialised to be aware of male violence in amrkn culture.
this is important: I do not do the socialising. the culture is the context. I was pointing out why SOME WOMEN will vote for SOME kind of gun regulation, BASED on this cultural story. jeezus wept dudes, talk about hysteria. . . (not aimed at you, but the knee-jerk defense mechanisms apparent in SOME here).
now, to your points - yes, in all the gun violence, the majority of it is aimed at men themselves, and each other. do you still believe women feel save knowing this? or want their partners to be armed and angry, or armed and suicidal? or their children's friends to grab dad's guns? etc? these thoughts MIGHT be going through SOME peoples, men and women, minds, and this MAY cause them to vote accordingly. do you think that the "incredible number of accidents" MIGHT influence thinking that MAYBE not every tool needs to have a bunch of guns in the house??
and yes, I know the UN wants to limit guns, and I DON"T AGREE WITH THE UN, but blaming SOME WOMEN who vote their beliefs is pointless - maybe instead of hating those women, address their fears. that's what SHOULD be happening, not some knee-jerk "fuck those bitches and their stupid kids" attitude that shows up here all the time.
if you want to start a safety of firearms drive, go ahead. I am not a feminist, I don't hate "men" and if you think it's only "feminists" that are pointing to societal training of types of "men" and "women" the culture uses to advance itself - this includes media, financial, military, etc. - then join the menz side and fight. or vote. whatever.
I am not in this fight, I'm merely observing it, and adding my opinions. my only weapon is my mind.
"...the UN wants to limit guns"? are you sure?
Cat, this gun debate is a pure American Culture War item. Nobody outside of the US cares how many guns Americans have. And nobody has such political fights about that as Americans have.
What the UK proposed in the UN is an International Weapons trade treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty
And you can be 100% sure that this treaty can only go through when the biggest exporter of weapons finds it OK. And this is the veto wielding US.
The only bit common item of American Culture War that the world shares with the US is feminism (third generation), which is also present in Scandinavia, the British Isles and the British Commonwealth.
In this subset, a lot of propaganda and misused statistics are wielded in order to advance an agenda. Note btw that there is quite a difference between the 2nd Gen and the 3rd Gen, the latter is more politic. And the battlefield of this fight is mainly boards of directors and divorce laws. In the EU we found this out when we wanted to harmonize our marriage and in particularly our divorce laws (we do have every year more and more "mixed" marriages/divorces between nationalities).
We have then splitted into a conservative continental block and the "liberal" or "progressive-like-the-US" rest, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Divorce_Law. Conservative because practically it's divorce "as your grandparents knew it".
My point is this: nobody is interested in having a drive for safety in general. It's like a "common good" in a classic "Tragedy of the Commons".
But in the context of rallying female support for a certain agenda and political outlook, a "women are in danger from firearms" meme is handy.
Hence this "socialization of awareness". Just trying to supply some facts, btw, whenever mnewn and you have a debate I'm an avid follower.
Cat and I both have strong opinions.
She thinks I'm a neanderthal...lol...I think she is overly sensitive with regards to some things seeing a boogeyman when there is not. We actually agree on other issues, water flouridation, bio-ag for example.
We also enjoy getting under each others skin from time to time but there is a level of respect for each others opinion.
well, perhaps you are both right. ;-) Seriously, I realize this - hence my avid followership and +1s to both.
I still maintain that the oldest solution to this American Gun Debate would be the smartest, i.e. the way how cities in Asia and Europe organized themselves. Make a boundary around the densely populated cities and ban weapons inside them (only). The old "monopoly on violence by the state" debate of course. Feminine, "civil" cities vs masculine, armed countrysides.
But of course this is not a solution in the US because you don't have sharp high-density to low-density population boundaries, your cities never needed real walls (except for a very short time that does not count).
Evening Ghordius.
Can't say I agree with your idea. I believe you would end up banning more than just guns inside that city...everything from kitchen knives to golf clubs.
The way I look at people in general (male or female) is you have the aggressive and the passive. The strong & the weak. And the criminal element is in both genders, its not just guys. The weak & passive would be at the mercy of the strong & aggressive with no real way to defend themselves.
As you say, leaving the monopoly of force to the police is all well and good provided you sleep with one and his/her only duty is to protect you...lol. We know police can't be everywhere and it always takes crucial minutes before one arrives at your door. Those minutes can mean life or death to the elderly and/or infirmed.
You must remember the gun is not just an offensive weapon, its also a defensive one, just like any other weapon.
I guess we just see it differently.
I see a hunk of metal laying on the table, whereas someone else sees an imminent threat to their safety. Probably because I've always been around them. I've never seen a gun go off by itself, it always takes a human to use it in defense or attack...like a knife, baseball bat or even a can of gasoline & a match.
Thats really all I was trying to get across to Cat. Just cause the guy has a gun doesn't mean she has to be defenseless. I've been married 27yrs and never laid a hand on her, out of respect for her AND she would probably shoot me ;-)
As if men need weapons to exert power over women? If anything, weapons level the playing field between the genders.
I have nothing against gun ownership, and recognise their usefulness particularly going forward.
but to ignore the fact that guns are used in anger, and to settle "domestic disputes" and other scores within the community is immature thinking at best. arming more women won't change this, but I realise that most see more guns in more hands as the best response.
the stats are out there if one even cares to look.
"the stats are out there if one even cares to look."
They sure are. Lots of them here (with sources):
Domestic violence
http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/01/domestic-violence.html
Some highlights:
*More than half of all "severe" domestic violence is committed by women against their husbands.
*Natural mothers are the perpetrators of: 93% of physical neglect of children, 60% of physical abuse of children.
*A Bureau of Justice report found that Mothers (55%) are more likely than Fathers (45%) to murder their children.
*According to the government's own figures, females (mostly mothers) kill 31 times as many children as natural fathers.
*Females comprise 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse (child murder).
As the link points out, the federal government's data on domestic violence is not reliable and its reports contradict themselves. Best to emphasize peer reviewed and meta analysis studies in any research on this topic, not government crime surveys.
Many earlier studies on domestic violence are also flawed: woman-on-man violence not even asked about; behavior experienced by both genders (e.g., pushing and slapping) mainly called "violence" by women, etc.
From my own experiences, I recall the terror of my fifth grade (or maybe it was fourth) being a couple of girls, who I was fortunate enough to befriend. :) They ruled with an iron fist... literally.
Interesting stats, but I wonder how much they are skewed by low income single moms who end up with the kids after a divorce or abandonment by a deadbeat dad. Not an excuse for their actions, of course, but might be a factor in pushing them over the edge with children they don't particularly care for because of the father.
Like their chimp cousins, women are by nature hypergamous. Chivalry and traditionalism (just a different form of feminism - a pussy for reward system where women are placed on a pedastal and males are disposable, just as they are in nature) kept these natural mating tendencies somewhat in check and hidden. The old lies are falling away, and new ones (the new feminism) are ascendant, with predictable consequences.
one thing "statistics" fail to show is background, the causes for the crimes as it were. . . stats mostly count the pieces, and are useful mainly to get a discussion started.
sadly, many areas of culture don't engage in discussions any more. . .
I beg to differ, ma'am. My g/f is 5'4 110lb and wouldn't stand a chance against the vast majority of men (and possibly women) that would mean to do her harm. Put her Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm in her hands and she can outshoot a lot of guys I know. That tool (her firearm) makes her less of a victim in todays dangerous world. You should encourage more women to do the same.
again, I have no problems with men or women carrying guns, as I have often said here.
I was merely pointing out the incidents of men using guns as a form of threat or control in relationships, and how this is not a rare occurence in amrkn culture. the original post I replied to was making a point that a "woman" was for gun control, and this point has been made often here, women desiring more stringent gun laws. many of the men acting out control dramas by going to a woman's workplace and shooting up the space have threatened their partners with a gun prior to killing them - I wonder if there's a way to resolve this? and perhaps we can acknowledge this type of violence informs some women's perspectives when it comes to guns?
but one thing I do notice - the amount of men who encourage their partners to get a gun to protect themselves against other men - THIS is something that might be worth addressing, or at least acknowledging. . .
"but one thing I do notice - the amount of men who encourage their partners to get a gun to protect themselves against other men - THIS is something that might be worth addressing, or at least acknowledging. . ."
I have encouraged my wife, daughters, sisters...all women to become familiar with protecting themselves.
Guns, knives, martial arts etc. are just tools of "self protection". Given your proclivities to womens rights you should be joining the fight...not fighting against it.
Theres nothing more sobering, for a drunk man, groping a lady in a dark parking lot...than feeling a .38 pressed to his temple ;-)
weaponized pussy
Cathartes, I find your incessant twisting of almost EVERY comment here as some kind of attack on women to be rather monotonous and tiresome. Please take off the pink-tinted glasses already --- your militant feminism belongs back in the 1970s (if anywhere).
"Militant" feminism huh? Seems like a poor descriptive word choice unless you're just name-calling to discredit. I think "outspoken" fits better. And for the guy who's developed a fetish for Chinese roadside excrement to complain about comment twisting...
Perhaps, then, you can find me a more appropriate word or phrase to describe the viewing and interpretation of almost every argument or comment through the prism of gender.
They can't, they're too busy looking for hugs from everyone.
They should just put on their pink tu-tu's, and a pink ribbon on their cars and run out and do every thing possible to save the ta-ta's.
Coming up this month, the NFL will be celebrating Gay Awarness, drop those pink accoutrements and adorn the rainbow boys. I can just see it now, rainbows everywere, and just think, those terrible towels will now be terrible rainbows.