Announcements: Finding Universes to Join (and making yours more visible!) » Guide To Universes On RPG » Member Shoutout Thread » Starter Locations & Prompts for Newcomers » RPG Chat — the official app » USERNAME CHANGES » Suggestions & Requests: THE MASTER THREAD »

Latest Discussions: Ramblings of a Madman: American History Unkempt » Site Revitalization » Map Making Resources » Lost Poetry » Wishes » Ring of Invisibility » Seeking Roleplayer for Rumple/Mr. Gold from Once Upon a Time » Some political parody for these trying times » What dinosaur are you? » So, I have an Etsy » Train Poetry I » Joker » D&D Alignment Chart: How To Get A Theorem Named After You » Dungeon23 : Creative Challenge » Returning User - Is it dead? » Twelve Days of Christmas » Empty Skies » Does Mind Affect the World? » I have an announcement. » Iskjerne Ballad by dealing_with_it »

Players Wanted: CALL FOR WITNESSES: The Public v Zosimos » Social Immortal: A Vampire Only Soiree [The Multiverse] » XENOMORPH EDM TOUR Feat. Synthe Gridd: Get Your Tickets! » Aishna: Tower of Desire » Looking for fellow RPGers/Characters » looking for a RP partner (ABO/BL) » Looking for a long term roleplay partner » Explore the World of Boruto with Our Roleplaying Group on FB » More Jedi, Sith, and Imperials needed! » Role-player's Wanted » OSR Armchair Warrior looking for Kin » Friday the 13th Fun, Anyone? » Writers Wanted! » Long term partner to play an older male wanted » DEAD! » Looking for new RP Buddy(s)! » Sands of Oblivion » Looking for Role Players to join an active universe » Looking for Empire of Cendalia Players » Seeking Roleplayers for The Isekai Wonderland Project »

Women's Marches 2017

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Moderators: dealing with it, Ambassadors

Talk about philosophy, politics, news & current events, or any other subject you're interested in!

Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby rubytuesday on Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:23 pm

As someone who was unfortunately unable to participate in any of the marches that took place near me in good ol' NZ, I was wondering if any fellow RPGateway-ers were involved themselves, as well as general thoughts and opinions surrounding the movement. Also, whilst I am personally immensely supportive of the movement, I'm kind of curious as to whether anyone on here has opposite opinions to me regarding it, and if so, why?

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
rubytuesday
Member for 8 years
Promethean Promethean Conversation Starter Author World Builder Conversationalist Novelist Lifegiver Tipworthy Visual Appeal Person of Interest Salesman

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby FyreT1ger on Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:18 pm

I am a woman living in the country where it seemed to have started and did not participate. The only one I did care about was the March for Life a week after what I call the anti-Trump march, not women's march. The only reason those women showed up for the anti-Trump march was because a MAN paid for them to and they all hate Trump. Any woman who did not hate President Trump or actually cared about people not themselves were kicked out.

The March for Life was ignored by mainstream media programs, despite or perhaps because of both President Trump and Vice President Pence's endorsement of the event. Vice President Pence also spoke at the March for Life. I am proud of my new President and his administration, so I would never have anything to do with any protest against it. Protesting against the new administration was the main reason for all those recent marches.

The presidential candidate I voted for in both Obama administrations did not win, but I didn't go to the streets cursing his name, blocking traffic, damaging other people's property, and trashing public thoroughfares or buildings.

I'm sorry about the rant. I really can't stand all this recent nonsense. I can answer your questions more politely though.

The simplest answer as to why I disagree with you is because these women DO NOT represent me, and it is exceedingly arrogant for them to assume they do by calling their movement a women's movement.

Just because I think they are arrogant and destructive, does not mean I don't care about women. I do care about women. I don't want women to be killed because they want to go to school. I don't want little girls being killed because they have a disability, or forced to take drugs or get surgery to sterilize them. I don't want women and girls being raped, or kidnapped and sold as sex slaves. I don't want women or men to be slaves period.

The problem with this movement you speak of, is that these women leading it don't care about any of those things I mentioned. The only thing they are fighting for is the ability to kill their daughters and harm their sons. They harm their sons by treating men like garbage and abusing anyone who disagrees with them. Ironically this make other people slaves to their whims. This movement is misandrist and hateful. I cannot participate, because I cannot promote hate.
Last edited by FyreT1ger on Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
FyreT1ger
Member for 14 years
Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Novelist Donated! Contributor Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby rubytuesday on Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:08 pm

"The only reason those women showed up for the anti-Trump march was because a MAN paid for them to and they all hate Trump. Any woman who did not hate President Trump or actually cared about people not themselves were kicked out."
I am curious as to your statement that a man paid for the women to march, because you are implying that protestors had to be paid to protest. The protestors -I obviously cannot speak for every single marcher- were, to my knowledge, volunteers. If they were all being paid by the same 'MAN', I hate to imagine the money he spent. That's a lot of money, jus' sayin'.

Also, your statement that "any woman who did not hate President Trump or actually cared about people not themselves were kicked out" is problematic. From what I have read (and please, feel free to correct me and provide me information if I am wrong) the main, notable group that were removed from the Women's March were New Wave Feminists, a pro-life group that previously protested the inauguration of Donald Trump. Considering that the Women's March's platform is, and always has been, openly pro-choice, so I completely understand this decision to exclude pro-lifers.

"The March for Life was ignored by mainstream media programs, despite or perhaps because of both President Trump and Vice President Pence's endorsement of the event. Vice President Pence also spoke at the March for Life."
I admit that I did not hear about the March for Life, but considering that I myself am pro-choice, I doubt that I would have much interest in it even if I had.

"I am proud of my new President and his administration, so I would never have anything to do with any protest against it."
And that is, of course, your decision. I cannot argue against your opting not to participate. However, I do wonder what has incited this pride? Looking at the president and his administration, I personally struggle to find things to compliment or feel proud of? Of course, this is all fairly subjective for the most part.

"Protesting against the new administration was the main reason for all those recent marches."
... Yes. I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.


"The presidential candidate I voted for in both Obama administrations did not win, but I didn't go to the streets cursing his name, blocking traffic, damaging other people's property, and trashing public thoroughfares or buildings."
And that is great. However, there were indeed protests during Obama's inauguration, including the torching of a predominately black church in Massachusetts. Not to mention that, whilst I acknowledge that there has been some negative behavior at the protests, the march as a whole has been praised multiple times on its peaceful and fairly well organized (in spite of the unexpected masses) ways of protest.

"I'm sorry about the rant. I really can't stand all this recent nonsense. I can answer your questions more politely though."
No need to apologize- I find discussions like these fascinating, and with topics as charged as this, ranting is pretty inevitable. :)

I regard the Women's March strongly because although, yes, it was protesting Trump, I myself and very anti-Trump, and also support everything the March seemed to stand for. I mean, the march was protesting Trump due to his sexist viewpoints and discriminatory behaviour, so... fair enough? Is there a better reason to protest than to point out injustice and to "bite back" at those fuelling the injustices?

"The simplest answer as to why I disagree with you is because these women DO NOT represent me, and it is exceedingly arrogant for them to assume they do by calling their movement a women's movement."
That is fair enough. I understand why you feel that way. I am sure that the 53% of white women who voted for Donald Trump agree with you. However, regardless of your personal opinions, the Women's March focused on women's issues in correlation with Trump's views, so the name is quite understandable.

"I do care about women. I don't want women to be killed because they want to go to school. I don't want little girls being killed because they have a disability, or forced to take drugs or get surgery to sterilize them. I don't want women and girls being raped, or kidnapped and sold as sex slaves. I don't want women or men to be slaves period."
Well, I'm glad that we agree on something, even if it is the only thing we agree on.

"These women leading it don't care about any of those things I mentioned. The only thing they are fighting for is the ability to kill their daughters and harm their sons."
Actually, they are protesting for a woman's right to her own autonomy. Among other things.

"They harm their sons by treating men like garbage and abusing anyone who disagrees with them."
I'm sure that the men who attended the march would disagree with you. As would the women, for that matter, and I'm fairly sure that the majority would not be abusive about it. When people are marching for women's rights, that does not mean they are marching against men's rights. When people are fighting for equality, they are trying to bring the person facing discrimination up, not the person experience privilege down.

"I cannot participate, because I cannot promote hate."
And yet you support Donald Trump? The reason people are protesting is because they want to fight back against the hate that Trump is promoting. Hate towards women. Hate towards the LGBTQ+ community. Hate towards racial minorities. Hate towards muslims.

Although I unfortunately could not attend, I support the Women's March and always will. I must support the movement, because I cannot condone hatred.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
rubytuesday
Member for 8 years
Promethean Promethean Conversation Starter Author World Builder Conversationalist Novelist Lifegiver Tipworthy Visual Appeal Person of Interest Salesman

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby bombinate on Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:25 pm

    Hi! I strongly support the movement, and would invite anyone ignorant to the reasons for the march to find some valid sources and accounts from women who participated in them.

    I support them because I believe in the fight for equality and the right of women to have access to reproductive services. I support them because men still feel they have a right to a woman's body and a right to make decisions about a woman's body. I support the march because we do not live in a world where a woman can stand beside a man and be considered his equal. We live in a world where being seen as too feminine is bad, where boys are insulted and called 'girls' because being called a girl is associated with being weak. We live in a world where pads and tampons are considered 'luxury' items by many governments, while viagra remains taxed. We live in a world where a woman is murdered/raped by a man and the media asks what she was wearing, whether she was drinking, what she should have done to prevent it.

    We live in a world where one of the most influential nations has elected a man with a past of making misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist comments and actions. When the President is an elected man who has been filmed admitting sexual assault, it further normalises it. When the vice president is a man who has previously limited the rights of people, it sets a scary precedent.

    Climate chance, immigration rights, LGBT rights, racial justice, reproductive rights, fighting xenophobia, promoting religious freedom (for all religions), promoting accessible education, and promoting equality. These are some of the important reasons why women and men marched.

    I would also like to add that while people have a right to support and agree with the President and Vice-President, so to do people have a right to disagree with them. Personally, I find many of their policies and beliefs terrifying. I believe it is arrogance, and a lack of empathy and understanding that allows them to make decisions about and strip the rights of people besides themselves - women, LGBT, immigrants, among others.

    The difference between an anti-abortion 'March for Life' rally and the Women's March is that the first seeks to limit the rights of certain individuals, restricting the rights of women to safe, legal healthcare, and the rights to make decisions about their own body. The second protest aims to ensure that everyone has equal rights; to promote health care, reproductive rights, racial justice, LGBT rights... and so many more worthy causes including the ones I mentioned above.To claim that the marchers don't care about women and girls being raped or killed for going to school is wrong. More than anyone, I believe that the women and men who attended the Women's march are highly aware of the way the American justice system seems to work against those individuals, how society privileges men over women.

    You say they march to promote hate, I say they march to stop it; to highlight the problems in our society today.


    I'm sure that my points aren't entirely eloquent, but I would like to add that I fully agree with what you've said RubyTuesday, and that you've put my own feelings into words. Especially with this exert:

    I'm sure that the men who attended the march would disagree with you. As would the women, for that matter, and I'm fairly sure that the majority would not be abusive about it. When people are marching for women's rights, that does not mean they are marching against men's rights. When people are fighting for equality, they are trying to bring the person facing discrimination up, not the person experience privilege down.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
bombinate
Member for 6 years
Conversationalist Promethean Author Inspiration World Builder Arc Warden Storyteller Person of Interest Friendly Beginnings Lifegiver Tipworthy

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Aniihya on Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:38 pm

I am male with a tendency towards pro-life while mostly apathetic if people get abortions or not. I just believe that if someone births a baby and puts it up for adoption, they should be reimbursed to offer an alternative to make abortion less attractive. I also believe than gay couples should have a right to adopt.

My opinion on the marches is that alot of the organization catered to the more radical elements of feminism and its spread. These elements try to exaggerate first world problems versus helping oppressed women in countries that actually discriminate women. I would like to see more American feminists standing up for women in Saudi Arabia and other countries like it.
Everybody! Unless you have been in a roleplay with me in the past and were loyal to it, do not PM or text me about joining your RP.

I do NOT do Pokemon, Yugioh, WoW or any such RPs.

Please be aware of this.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Aniihya
Member for 14 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration World Builder Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Novelist Greeter Tipworthy Tipworthy Visual Appeal Person of Interest Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby rubytuesday on Sun May 21, 2017 1:36 am

@Aniihya; for the most part I understand what your saying, however I do take a small issue with this statement:

"I would like to see more American feminists standing up for women in Saudi Arabia and other countries like it."

Obviously, I agree that it is of the utmost important for us to support women experiencing such despicable victimisation as those in countries such as the aforementioned, but the thing is... there is nothing wrong with us talking about the problems we personally face as well. Not because the sexism first-world women is worse, because obviously it isn't (and nobody is saying that it is), but because inequality should always be fought against, regardless of its 'level, or what-have-you.

After all, if someone is unwell and talking about how terrible their illness is, nobody stands up and says, "Hey! Why aren't you talking about cancer instead? Cancer is far worse than what you've got!"

Because that would be silly.

Now, I'm sure this isn't the argument you're making, but I had to say all that just because the use of words like 'first world problems' are a touch too familiar when it comes to people who argue the need for feminism. That said, you also use the term 'radical feminism' instead of just 'feminism', which proves that you are, unlike many it seems, able to distinguish the difference between a movement/group and its extremists.

But I digress. Bottom line is, the march was about fighting problems the women in the march were and are experiencing. Because even if they're not as oppressed as other women around the world, they still experience forms of oppression and discrimination in their country, and that freaking matters.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
rubytuesday
Member for 8 years
Promethean Promethean Conversation Starter Author World Builder Conversationalist Novelist Lifegiver Tipworthy Visual Appeal Person of Interest Salesman

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Red_Cardinal on Sun May 21, 2017 4:33 am


What the hell is wrong with you US?
I totally can see where Aniihya is going. While the rest of the world is suffering from existencial problems - you ironicaly are concerned with those of abundance. You have it way to good. You've created that construct of hatred in your heads, that somehow the opposite gender is allways scheming to rape you, or strip you of your hard earned money - while in reality they don't even care about you. Why? Are you that desperate for attention? And the saddest point is, that you started to belive this bullshit, starting all sorts of activism only to divide the society. Conducting 'women's' marches, while you should march for 'human' rights, which automatically cover womens rights by the way. Because you know, the bitter reality is increasingly, that you have no rights before wealth and power (yes in your country). And the ones holding wealth and power just don't care about this bullshit you're occupied with meanwhile.

Maybe Trump is just what you need, to wake you up from this braincontrolled state. Where's the freedom of speech in the US nowadays? You're trying to censor anything, not fitting within your fantasy unicorn ideas. Why do you have to control, what other people think? - Well it's quite obvious to me, why people wouldn't want to hang out around those protests. So i can totally understand people like FyreTiger, not giving a shit about your madness. Hell i don't understand how you could let the whole country to be controlled by media and other peoples influence, instead of having your own brain. Sorry i fail to see how this all is productive in any way - maybe you can enlighten me?...
If you happen to have a riddle for me - i will gladly accept your offer
Image

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Red_Cardinal
Member for 6 years
Conversation Starter Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Author Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby rubytuesday on Sun May 21, 2017 7:27 am

... Um, okay. Here we go, I guess.
First, i'm just going to get that ridiculous "human's rights covers women's rights" bs right out the way by asking if you, Red_Cardinal legitimately believe that speaking up for a specific group is wrong? I take that to mean that you also disagree with movements such as Gay Pride, Black Lives Matter, the Civil Rights movement, etc.? Because how dare anyone express concern for a specific thing, right? When there is inequality, how dare we point out specific areas where said inequality is rampant, right?

And thank you. I am aware of areas in which I have privilege. I am a white, cisgender individual living in a first world country. However, I am also female, and experience sexism daily, so please don't be so ignorant as to suggest that just because I have it better than many others, that I live in a glorious bubble of entitlement. As I've already said, the US, and other first world countries are able to have issues even if they are not to the extreme levels as other countries. This may alarm you, but racism, sexism, transphobia, islamophobia and homophobia are all still very present in the United States, and with the a man who displays all of these qualities being elected president... people are going to be angry. And they are going to use that good ol' "freedom of speech" that you mentioned to speak up about it. Hell, maybe they'll even... *gasp*... protest.

As for the rest of your points... they're kind of irrelevant? Like, why are you talking about us supposedly trying to "censore anything, not fitting within your fantasy unicorn ideas" (the fuck does that even mean,
lol)? And what has the media got to do with this particular discussion?

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
rubytuesday
Member for 8 years
Promethean Promethean Conversation Starter Author World Builder Conversationalist Novelist Lifegiver Tipworthy Visual Appeal Person of Interest Salesman

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Red_Cardinal on Sun May 21, 2017 9:13 am


I don't believe, i need to explain it to you: being a man, woman, gay person or whatever the hell you identify with - your basic rights are covered by the human rights within the constitution of your country. And for that being covered equally for every human being living there. This is a fact - i don't see how this is bs and i don't see how your question is supposed to get this out of the way. How is that even supposed to be an argument? If inequality is your main concern, you should consider the scales of inequality first. And i'll give you an argument to ponder on: go try to protest for identification policy in any muslim country and see what happens. Maybe... just maybe.. you will experience some real sexism once in a while! *gasp*.

But i'll answer:

Yes! I, personally disagree with wasting my time participating in any activism, instead of producing results, which could help the people directly.

"don't be so ignorant as to suggest that just because I have it better than many others, that I live in a glorious bubble of entitlement." - But thats exactly what you are. In the US you are able to express anything without being systematically persecuted, however i wonder for how long anymore. It seems people are getting tired of all the whining.I am well aware that you already said, that US can still have issues - show me a country that doesn't. Still the scale of those is insignificant compared to other countries. I just can't understand how ignorant a person must be, living in the country that gives you the freedom to express yourself as you like and still to abuse this freedom. What do you expect the result of this to be? Well done, you're contributing to the minorities having real troubles in the future!

"As for the rest of your points... they're kind of irrelevant? Like, why are you talking about us supposedly trying to "censore anything, not fitting within your fantasy unicorn ideas" (the fuck does that even mean,
lol)? And what has the media got to do with this particular discussion?
"

Irrelevant? how so? - Maybe you would at least try to elaborate. Don't tell me, you haven't even noticed the obvious obsession of the media with all this "political correctness" bs. What if i don't want to be political correct? Mind your own business, media! You see, my opinion is also covered by the right of free speech. See, what happens here is the imposition of an ideology upon the people, they don't want anything to do with in the first place! Read up on the golden rules of journalism, if you didn't already. Thats exactly the opposite of what is happening in the US since the Trump election campaign (at latest since then).

I'd be glad if you brought some logic into your arguments and adressed the points i made, like i did here!

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Red_Cardinal
Member for 6 years
Conversation Starter Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Author Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby wednesdaysun on Sun May 21, 2017 12:02 pm

    First and foremost, reading back all of the responses on this thread, I'd like to point out a few things (and I am aware this is a deviation from what you've asked in the first post, RT, but bear with me here):

    1. 'free speech', 'freedom of speech' and all variants hereof:
      As far as I know, the freedom of speech everyone cares to wave around so carelessly (instead of bearing responsibility for the words and actions said in discourse (or lack thereof) as pushback against political correctness) extends to the federal government (or, as originally stipulated, Congress.)
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      (The above quote of Amendment I of the US Constitution is from Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.) Please note Congress and not private individuals you feel are threatening to kill your world views when, really, they're not as out to get you as you think they are and are probably looking to be left alone just as you are.

      Here are a whole bunch of other sources for you to read on First Amendment law.
      TL;DR — Whatever the First Amendment says about 'free speech' applies to the government (or any other entity working on behalf of the government such as schools) applying these restrictions or censorships to the public, not two or more private individuals imposing censorships on each other. Our expressing our belief in the Women's Marches and all the tenets covered by it are no more a restriction of your freedom of speech than your expressing your belief that us following Trump will reverse our 'brainwashing' is a restriction of ours. The most we can do now is try to have decent conversation and try not to name-call or be smug.


    2. A response to @FyreT1ger:
      FyreT1ger wrote:'The simplest answer as to why I disagree with you is because these women DO NOT represent me, and it is exceedingly arrogant for them to assume they do by calling their movement a women's movement.'

      • If you feel that it doesn't apply to you, then that's good. You're in a position of advantage. But just as you are of the mind for people not to drag your notion of womanhood in the term 'Women', please understand that you cannot drag those who are most in need of recognition through that term through the mud simply because you feel that it doesn't apply to you. One woman's poison is another woman's cure.
      • I do, however, appreciate that you expressed concern for women in other countries. That is a step in the right direction.
        FyreT1ger wrote:I don't want women to be killed because they want to go to school. I don't want little girls being killed because they have a disability, or forced to take drugs or get surgery to sterilize them. I don't want women and girls being raped, or kidnapped and sold as sex slaves. I don't want women or men to be slaves period.

        The thing is, neither do we as feminists. (I don't profess to speak for all of them. Like all movements/ideologies/groups, there will always be the type that leans too much to the extremes of the spectrum, and something called 'radical feminism' is at one of the far ends of that spectrum.)

        Neither do I, and I am a feminist.
      • I feel I have to offer a defence of my being a feminist.

        I identify as an intersectional (not radical), postcolonial feminist, to use 'liberal snowflake' terminology.

        I will not lie and use the label of 'egalitarian', because I feel it simply skims over issues of, say, domestic abuse of either sex, and allows us to shrug and say, 'Well, you (male, female, or otherwise) shouldn't be abusing that person, now. Okay, we're good! All is equal!'

        I am a feminist because I want to help to examine how this equality might be achieved through removing women from a point of social disadvantage formed over years and years (to the point where it's become quietly understood as a societal foundation) and then from there—heck, even simultaneously—we can figure out how men are equally disadvantaged (e.g. masculine societal expectations to not express their feelings via 'man up' or 'men don't cry; male domestic, spousal abuse; how courts favour mothers over fathers; much less leave for fathers that mothers when their babies are born, etc.) and work at them.
      • Before any of you pull a tu quoque and say, 'Hey, well, what have you done?' The profession I intend on entering is one I hope will change things, however much I can: law. Et tu, Brute?
      • I'm sorry. I feel I have to say something because where I live, some of what you've mentioned is happening right under our noses everyday. In fact, they just nabbed this fucking creep in a raid. (Before you get your panties in a bunch, I'm from Manila. I was born POC. The place that article mentions is a two-hour drive away. 'White privilege' is also men like him slipping through the cracks.) This sort of monstrosity—the fact that this is even allowed to exist and on my own soil—is one of the driving forces of my feminism. I want this to end for them. It isn't fair that you get to generalise us as arrogant, destructive, misandrist, child-killing fiends.
"Believing oneself to be perfect is often the sign of a delusional mind."

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
wednesdaysun
Member for 14 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Greeter World Builder Inspiration Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Red_Cardinal on Sun May 21, 2017 2:29 pm


First and foremost, screw you for making me read the first amendment of another country ^^

I shall correct my expression : "my opinion is also covered by the right of free speech" by "The contents of my speech are not prohibited by any law within the US constitution." - which doesn't apply to me anyway, since i'm not a citizen of the US. Still this language police - jeez! Also an interesting thing (and correct me if i'm wrong) is, that i also could claim any expression (yeah yeah aside of the exceptions to the freedom of expression) under the banner of the freedom of press, since it includes every individual publishing anything. On top of that neither me nor you are in the position to decide wether the activism can be considered as "an entity working on behalf of the government" as long as the funding sources aren't made public.

I didn't say Trump will reverse your brainwashing, nor that you have to follow him! I believe you will do it yourself, after Trump leads you to the state of realizing how good you were beforehead. But you have to deal with your president now and respect the choice of the voting majority.

Also i don't care what you do with your time, as long as it doesn't hinder me in some sort. And considering how the modern activism is escaping the responsibilities and distorting the peacefull and logically built debates (or better: promoting the lack of it), i feel the urge to pose concern.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Red_Cardinal
Member for 6 years
Conversation Starter Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Author Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby SpiritDancer on Sun May 21, 2017 3:31 pm

    @Red_Cardinal, truly, all of your replies have only proven how ignorant you are of the current state of the United States of America. As someone who is a woman, a person of color, and also not straight, America has never been a "glorious bubble of entitlement" for me, even though I'm still very young. If you do not live in the United States, do not speak as if you know everything about how life is there, and especially if you aren't even aware of the basic things like the first amendment, because that only proves how little you know about the country. Just like I cannot speak on how it is to live in Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, India, because I have personally never visited, lived in those countries nor have I studied enough about them to give an accurate representation of how society is there.

    Red_Cardinal wrote:" But you have to deal with your president now and respect the choice of the voting majority."

    That statement in and of itself is incorrect. Hillary Clinton was the presidential candidate that won the majority vote by roughly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. Trump only won the actual election because of the electoral college, which in my opinion is an outdated system that either needs to be reworked or done away with completely.

    So yes, while you are correct in saying we have to deal with our current president, he was not chosen by the majority of people who voted by a large margin.

    You can argue all you want about political correctness, but do not speak as if you know more about a country than those who have lived there for most of their lives.

    And may I add that your current argument is rather silly. Just because America has it better than many countries, doesn't mean that the problems in America shouldn't be addressed or that they should be outright ignored. That likes saying if one person had an arm cut off and the other person only lost a finger, you would completely ignore the one with the relatively minor injury in favor of treating the other. If any type of doctor did that they would immediately get fired. Both are injuries, both could possibly lead to the death of the individual, and both need to be treated according the severity of the injury.

    This is not the oppression Olympics, we are not racing other countries to see who is most oppressed. All levels and degrees of oppression need to be dealt with, because they can easily escalate into something worse.
Ambar: Snow & Ash
Image
Image
"I’m tryin’ to fix myself
And not care too much about you"

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
SpiritDancer
Scholar
Member for 8 years
Contributor Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration World Builder Conversationalist Builder Storyteller Beta Tester Arc Warden Friendly Beginnings Person of Interest Visual Appeal Greeter Salesman Property Buyer Tipworthy Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby wednesdaysun on Sun May 21, 2017 7:17 pm

    Red_Cardinal wrote:First and foremost, screw you for making me read the first amendment of another country ^^

    Red_Cardinal wrote:peacefull and logically built debates

    Allow me a moment of pettiness (and possible leaning very, very close to tone policing) to juxtapose both those statements together. A 'screw you' does not a 'peacefull and logically built [debate]' make.

    That aside, I'll address the first statement. I 'made you' read another country's constitution, whatever your country may be, because the grain in which we are currently addressing is the US. At present, going by the tone set by FyreT1ger and Aniihya, we are discussing how this affects the US. I never professed to your being a US citizen. Hell, neither am I. I'm Filipino.

    I am aware that the OP is from New Zealand and is asking 'if any fellow RPGateway-ers were involved themselves, as well as general thoughts and opinions surrounding the movement' and '[opposite opinions regarding it]'. Who knows? it may yet progress to a discussion about the marches in, I dunno, India. The circumstances that led them to march and how the Marches impact their society would be fascinating. But at present, this is what we are working with.

    My country marched too, although owing to the conservative-leaning nature of the Philippines and the fact that the left here has, let's just say, a storied past (in part due to US involvement during the Cold War with them using us as an Asia-Pacific base of operations), it wasn't as big. Hell, I didn't even know about it until foreign outlets published it.



    For context, GABRIELA [Women's Party] is a Philippine left-leaning organisation. I didn't see it get reported on. Maybe they decided it just wasn't newsworthy. I'd say the GABRIELA protests were much bigger in their US charter.


    Also,
    Red_Cardinal wrote:But you have to deal with your president now and respect the choice of the voting majority.

    Like I said, I'm not American. He's not actually my president.

    And he won by Electoral College, not voting majority. Since you're not American either, here's a bit of information on the Electoral College, and here's its history.

    And finally,
    Red_Cardinal wrote:I believe you will do it yourself, after Trump leads you to the state of realizing how good you were beforehead.

    I don't think I will. As long as he continues to stand for and act upon values that can cause great harm to his more vulnerable constituents, I don't know how much 'good' he's going to make me, if at all.

    Also, thank you, @SpiritDancer. All this relative privation nonsense is complete bull. It is possible to address multiple concerns at once. It's not a one-concern-at-a-time gig, and neither is it the Oppression Olympics.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
wednesdaysun
Member for 14 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Greeter World Builder Inspiration Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby rubytuesday on Sun May 21, 2017 8:22 pm

The question is supposed to be an argument because i am trying to gauge exactly where you are coming from, as well as examining your views on activism as a whole, because this debate is about an act of activism (and not about the media's "brainwashing" or "political correctness", which you are welcome to start another page for- hell, I might at some point! They're pretty interesting topics!)

Unfortunately, the fact that you seem to be convinced that activism is a waste of time and does not produce results is kind of troubling. Like, that's just incorrect? The truth is, we 'little people' aren't power houses. We can't change laws on our own. We can't change the world single handedly. It is what we can do when we are together that is truly extraordinary. Sit-ins, marches, demonstrations, vigils, petitions, boycotts... they do, and have, changed things. They make a difference. I mean, just look at where the feminist movement has brought us. Or the Black Civil Rights movement. Or the Environmental movement.

"What if i don't want to be political correct? Mind your own business, media!"
I said this was irrelevant to this particular argument because we're not arguing against free speech or political incorrectness at the moment. We're arguing about whether the 2017 Women's March was or wasn't a 'good' thing. I could word this better, but you catch my drift, I'm sure. I'm not arguing that there are biases in most media sources, because yes, there are. And yes, that promotes debate. But not here. Because this particular debate is about something else.
((On a small, personal sidenote, I feel kind of iffy when people complain about how 'politically correct' and 'sensitive' people are nowadays, because the truth is we're just less racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. as a whole. And you can blame that on us 'millennials' and younger being born into a generation where certain things, such as same-sex relationships have (thankfully) begun to be normalised by the general public. But again, I digress.))

"Well done, you're contributing to the minorities having real troubles in the future!"
I am generally curious about why you think protesting injustices that minorities are facing is contributing to their problems? I also am curious as to what you mean by "real troubles"? Are the current troubles they experience on a day-to-day basis in countries like the US not 'real' enough for you?

On that note, I question your statement that "Maybe... just maybe.. you will experience some real sexism once in a while!" Because, again, you are suggesting that my experiences aren't "real". Which is kind of silly, to be perfectly honest, not to mention extremely ignorant considering you have absolutely no clue what my experiences are. But go on, continue making uneducated assumptions.

I was going to write a response to one of the other arguments posed, but I see that SpiritDancer has already got it covered. I especially love this statement: "This is not the oppression Olympics, we are not racing other countries to see who is most oppressed."

EDIT; also, @WednesdaySun; I have not heard about GABRIELA so thank you for bringing it up! I'm super eager to read up on it- it sounds like a group I can definitely get behind! :)

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
rubytuesday
Member for 8 years
Promethean Promethean Conversation Starter Author World Builder Conversationalist Novelist Lifegiver Tipworthy Visual Appeal Person of Interest Salesman

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Red_Cardinal on Sun May 28, 2017 7:58 am


Woah, i'm getting famous! - I wonder if i'm paying way to much attention to this, wasting my time in the process... Forgive me, but i can't adress all of you at the same time - i'll go through post by post:

@SpiritDancer:

"@Red_Cardinal, truly, all of your replies have only proven how ignorant you are of the current state of the United States of America." - You can insult me as long as you want - since my person is in no way relevant to the points made, i only care for the logic of your arguments. And i must say, i don't understand your logic:

First of all - i am investing my time to give my opinion on this topic and discuss the reasons behind it. I list the issues i have with the movement. Then i tackle issues by identifying the core of the problem, since this is the most effective way to deal with any problem. Since US is the most important exporteur of this ideology, i adress the situation in the US. How exactly is this ignorant? I could aswell just ignore the topic completely, like the most people did!

RubyTuesday created this topic, assumably with the intention of opening a discussion, since we were asked:
"I was wondering if any fellow RPGateway-ers were involved themselves, as well as general thoughts and opinions surrounding the movement. Also, whilst I am personally immensely supportive of the movement, I'm kind of curious as to whether anyone on here has opposite opinions to me regarding it, and if so, why?"

1. All 'RPGateway-ers' were asked, 2. 'General thoughts and opinions' on the movement were asked and 3. especially opposite opinions and reasons behind those were asked - i am at last trying to adress all those points.

"If you do not live in the United States, do not speak as if you know everything about how life is there, and especially if you aren't even aware of the basic things like the first amendment, because that only proves how little you know about the country." - I've never proclaimed myself of knowing everything about the US, but i need to tackle the situation for the reasons explained above. And i've read up on the first amandement of your country out of a simple reason of language policing from somebody else, which didn't either affect my argument, nor had it contributed to the discussion in any way. In fact, i will claim that you don't need to know everything about the US to know, that there are more important problems than 'oppression' within the US itself. I will expand on that point later in this post.

Yeah, so thats the first point: i don't know how exactly my replies would prove any form of ignorance, especially when the discussion on all of my arguments is still ongoing.

On your statement about the presidents election: i could retract my wording there, since again it wouldn't affect my argument at all. Trump was legally elected and you have to respect that. I don't undrstand the drive to cling to the unimportant parts, instead of addressing the argument head on. But- i will not retract it, since the following logic chain: president <- electoral college <- congress and senate <- US citizens. So while you're right about the president not being elected by the US citizens directly, my argument still holds: He was elected by the voting majority within the electoral college, participants of which represent the people of the US, because chosen through the congress - the direct representants. Carefull about saying, the system is outdated - there are many thoughts and precautions even you and i don't know, considered by the system. I'm no expert to expand on this - ask appropriate people.

The 'oppression olympics' and the 'doctor example' i find important and will address in the general response.

@wednesdaysun

"Allow me a moment of pettiness (and possible leaning very, very close to tone policing) to juxtapose both those statements together. A 'screw you' does not a 'peacefull and logically built [debate]' make." - i don't know what kind of answer you do expect on that... - Very well, you may proceed! However i might add: your lack of the ability to understand humour is none of my concerns.

"Like I said, I'm not American. He's not actually my president." - then why do you feel addressed? I'm pretty sure, you are well aware that i'm addressing US citizens with those statements. How about expanding on my actual arguments instead?

"I don't think I will. As long as he continues to stand for and act upon values that can cause great harm to his more vulnerable constituents, I don't know how much 'good' he's going to make me, if at all." - sometimes you need to apply evil to do good in the long term.

I will adress that ' relative privation' later, since i think you're referring to the 'doctor parable' by SpiritDancer.

@RubyTuesday

As i mentioned before, you don't need to gauge where i am coming from- since my person is not important for the topic of this discussion. You can adress the logic of my arguments though, since this is the only thing i care for.

Very well, i shall drop the topics of the media brainwashing and political corectness - since they are just too big to address here. However i shall point out that they are important topics to understand the connections to the topic of activism here and now for the last time.

I will move the discussion on the achievements of the modern activism and whether 'the truth is we're just less racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. as a whole' to the general response, since this is an important point. I will also expand on what i mean by 'real problems' and the way of how activsm only contributes to the problems later.






Phew ok - i think i've covered the unimportant parts, so let us proceed to the discussion of the core problems:

To make it clear ahead: i will not let you escape from the argument of women in islamic nations being far more 'oppressed', than western women, by saying something like this: "This is not the oppression Olympics, we are not racing other countries to see who is most oppressed." This is still a fact and i will underline here, that even within the topic of 'opression' there are far greater problems to address. So why don't you go protest for all women, instead of only minding your own business? Go to any islamic country - make a change! Whats the matter? I thought you care for all women..

On top of that, there seems to be confusion on what i mean by 'real problems'. I shall list some now:
- death by prosecution, death in war, death from starvation, death by cold, death by drug overdosis, death by suicide, death in incidents, death in shootings, death by illness/infections, death from terroristic activity and so forth
- state of powerty (especially among homeless people and elders/veterans), different mental states (suicide thoughts, depression, illneses), physical state (diseases, viruses, disability), children without parents, environment state and so forth

As you can see 'oppression' didn't even make it on the list, since i believe all this categories having a greater impact than 'oppression'. I simply do not see how anyone can argue against that. Do not tell me "This is not the oppression Olympics", after going to protests to practice exactly that by whining of how oppressed you are. Hell: I identify as a lantern. Im so oppressed, i have no rights at all - literally. Oh yeah, i think it's a good idea to go on a protest to gain some attention, while there are people suffering far more than me - but who cares about them? I prefer wasting my time contributing to my own well being, instead of helping them! And, honestly, anybody who believes otherwise is just stupid! - Obviously!

Now that leads you to the argument: well everything can be addressed at the same time and independant from the severity, as i understood from the 'doctor parable'. I find it quite good actually - so lets expand on that: You have one patient with an cut off arm before the doctor. Next: at the same time an patient with an cut off finger enters the room: let's call him 'green peace'. Shortly after another patient enters the room - lets call him 'feminism'. He has a problem with his broken nail. And again a patient enters the room. This time it is 'BLM' - doesn't have any injuries, but still wants a check instantly. What doctor in their sane mind wouldn't attend to the patient with the cut off arm? How the hell do you expect the doctor to attend to all of them simultaniously? - "Well just hire another doctor"- you would say. Because you know, you're so accustomed to having all the ressources you need, that you can't see, how there is not enough for everyone! On top of that you're redirecting attention from where it belongs to, which would be the patient with the cut off arm - obviously, to the minor issues you have. How about becoming a doctor yourself? How ignorant and absolutely bull of me to point you to this, right?

But now you'll argue of how the activism still is not waste of time and consider all the achievements! Ok let's get into it:
what achievements exactly do you mean? - Environment activists is the only group i would pay respect in regard to actually achieving an internationally signed convention - the points of which even then can't be held by 3/4 of the countries signed it. You know how how they got so far? - Because they're actually able to lead an intellectual discussion and see the severity of all problems at hand. So lets proceed with feminism. It was able to lead a discussion untill the modern feminism got in their way. Honestly all achievements in regards to equality was achieved by the intellectual people, who identified as feminists back in the day. I think they will think twice and differentiate nowadays! I man honestly?: " Kill all white man, manspreading, safe spaces in universities, concept of patriarchy (which even if it was real accepted the idea of equality as a fair point) - this is all they're concerned with, while people die out there? No wonder nobody takes them seriously anymore! And finally to 'BLM': leading policeman into traps and torturing disabled trump supporters - this movement is just criminal, which considering its funding sources is quite understandable.
Image

So maybe i'm blind here - help me to see the achievements, you're speaking of..

Instead of wasting your time, adding problems on the list of the people, who actually deal with real problems - you might actually consider doing something to solve the already existing and far more severe issues. I have to get my priorities straight - i wont offer more of my time to this topic and invest it instead somewhere else, where it is more needed.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Red_Cardinal
Member for 6 years
Conversation Starter Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Author Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby SpiritDancer on Sun May 28, 2017 5:13 pm

    @Red_Cardinal, clearly you missed the entire point of my own spiel about being ignorant on the state of America, so let me make it clearer to you.

    Red_Cardinal wrote:"This time it is 'BLM' - doesn't have any injuries, but still wants a check instantly."

    See? This is exactly where you're being ignorant as hell. You assume that just because black people live in a privileged country like America, that we don't have any problems anymore simply because "Oh they're not slaves anymore. They're not being lynched, fire-hosed and segregation is over with. Heck, they even have the Affirmative Action and can get into college with no problem (even though that is still very far from the truth, it is a argument used commonly) Why the hell are they complaining?"

    This is exactly where you're assuming that you know how life is in America for every single group of people. You throw them all under the boat of "living in a privileged bubble" when that is as far from the truth you can get.

    Since you're not American, let me help you out here.
    Image

    There's a very easy and cute little timeline of overt racism in the United States. See that little green bar at the very end? That's how many years we've been "free" of racism.

    Now riddle me this; Do you really think that after 249 years of slavery and 89 years of segregation (combined for a total of 335 years of overt racism) that all of those racist ideas and prejudices that people held would just disappear into thin air the moment some government dude signed a document to say that we're not slaves anymore? That we can vote and that we can go to the same schools as white people? That just because we had a black president that everything is all fine and dandy for black people in the USA?

    Is that really what you think happened? Because that's what your entire argument insinuates.

    I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of your argument because it's already been covered in this thread before and you're just repeating yourself by this point.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
SpiritDancer
Scholar
Member for 8 years
Contributor Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration World Builder Conversationalist Builder Storyteller Beta Tester Arc Warden Friendly Beginnings Person of Interest Visual Appeal Greeter Salesman Property Buyer Tipworthy Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby тнαηαтσѕ on Sun May 28, 2017 6:11 pm

ok listen. I'm not about to refute this entire poorly constructed argument. There would only be two reasons for doing that: 1) to attempt to enlighten your world view and educate you or 2) to educate others who may enter this thread with a lack of knowledge and attempt to view both sides of the debate.
As for 1, I happen to be of the personal opinion that there is very little point in speaking to people who have neither desire nor care to listen to those who happen to be of an opposing opinion. (There are, after all, a number of very solid quotations from very bright minds warning against such practices. Dating all the way back to early editions of the bible even! "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." was in proverbs. An irrelevant anecdote, but you'll forgive my passion for etymology.)
And in regards to 2, there seem to be plenty of very competent and capable people already making exemplary counterarguments, so I won't waste anyone's time repeating things that have already been said, probably with far better eloquence than I could manage.

That said, however, there is something of yours I feel an urge to point out.

Red_Cardinal wrote:
But you have to deal with your president now and respect the choice of the voting majority.


If you could, I wish you'd refrain from making egregious and outlandishly flawed statements about the system and state of American politics only to follow up by lashing out when people attempt to correct your ignorance. It seems to be a personal non sequitur for you to make comments such as the one I've highlighted above, then tell another user "screw you for making me read the first amendment of another country."

decl. indep. wrote:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


At any rate, the above is what I came to say. Even if Trump had been elected with the majority vote, it is not the role of the people (at least not in the United States) to sit idly by and twiddle their thumbs saying to themselves, "Well. Guess we just gotta deal with this now." Not only is it within the rights of the people to protest a government they don't support, it's their duty. There is no "dealing with" in a democratic republic. It is and always has been the right of the people governed to wretch the power away from the government. And that's all I came to say.

But as a quick side note, I do want to mention that the first amendment of our country is part of the Bill of Rights. Meaning this: any developed nation and plenty of developing nations also have a very similar if not something in the exact stream of intent to our first amendment. Now, I don't know where you live, admittedly, but going solely off mathematical probability, odds are you also have some form of "amendment" protecting your right from censorship from the government. Odds are also that this right does not protect you from other people disputing your opinions. Because I've never heard of that being a thing, ever. Your right to freedom of speech cannot infringe upon others' right to freedom of speech. So wednesdaysun could've linked you to any government's clause on freedom of speech and it would've had a similar sentiment. Maybe you should read your own country's clause on freedom of speech if you're so violently opposed to reading another country's.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
тнαηαтσѕ
Member for 7 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Tipworthy Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby Kestrel on Mon May 29, 2017 7:00 am

RubyTuesday wrote:I'm kind of curious as to whether anyone on here has opposite opinions to me regarding it, and if so, why?

I think about 15 years ago, there was a friend I had who came out as gay in one of my cliques of highschool friends who didn't spend much time in highschool. The general response of my clique was; "Okay, so?" This generally went for a lot of things. We had varied ethnic backgrounds. We had a Christian and a few Muslims. We were in different 'levels' of highschool (in my country, there's varying levels of difficulty and they affect which colleges you can get into.) Really the biggest thing that tied us shitty punk kids together was "fuck the system" and trolling people irl. What you believed in or were attracted to, really didn't matter, as long as you were fun to hang out with (and authority figures hated your guts.)

Similarly, I backpacked throughout NZ for a year or so. I'm sure you're familiar with the Hare Krishna movement and their silly dance throughout the city streets. In Auckland, I was invited to one of their gatherings. I listened to their talk, I did the dance and chant. I also ate the awesome food. However, no matter how I disagreed on a number of views and topics, they still treated me as an equal and a friend. They asked me about my views and asked why I thought what I did. Never did they try to convert me. What mattered was learning about the philosophy and having a good time. For as long as I was in Auckland (which was a while because I worked there) I went about every week.

This is what my general impression of the women's march contrasts. It's not a singular goal or idea that binds people together to act, there's a whole slew of ideas and community principles you need to buy into and adapt to in order to be part of a group. It's like going to a catholic church; just believing in god is not enough to be part of the group. This is what I think turns people away from projects such as the women's march. I may agree on pro-choice and can easily concede that Trump is a dick, but that doesn't mean I belong in any feminist movement. Just because I don't think your sex should matter outside of certain physical factors (sports and army come to mind,) doesn't mean I believe in a patriarchy or the systematic oppression of women in the west. So what it really comes down to is... I don't support the women's march because I'm not a feminist and the women's march is primarily a feminist movement.

Does that answer your question?
Do you come from a land down under?
Where women glow and men plunder?
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
Kestrel
Member for 15 years
Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Completionist Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby SpiritDancer on Mon May 29, 2017 10:53 am

Kestrel wrote:It's not a singular goal or idea that binds people together to act, there's a whole slew of ideas and community principles you need to buy into and adapt to in order to be part of a group.

    I can understand your aversion because of this, and I also kinda agree. Even within the feminist movement itself there are a lot of differences in opinion from feminist to feminist. There are feminist who are against the pornography industry and those who make porn themselves, and then you also have TERFs (trans exclusionary feminists) and feminists who 100% believe that trans women are real women. That's not even going into inter-sectional feminism. It really is a lot like religion, where there is this basic principle you need to believe in, and then beyond that you can belong to different denominations. But I guess that's to be expected whenever a social movement such as this one evolves so much from what it was initially.

    Which is why I have such a problem with people who want to call the whole movement exclusionary and in-effective. There's just too many factors to the movement itself to be able to say something like that and have it be an accurate statement.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
SpiritDancer
Scholar
Member for 8 years
Contributor Promethean Conversation Starter Author Inspiration World Builder Conversationalist Builder Storyteller Beta Tester Arc Warden Friendly Beginnings Person of Interest Visual Appeal Greeter Salesman Property Buyer Tipworthy Lifegiver

Re: Women's Marches 2017

Tips: 0.00 INK Postby FyreT1ger on Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:48 pm

I want to address several different posts above me. Some are high up in the post list, and probably should have been addressed earlier but weren't, so bear with me, please.

Wednesdaysun, I admit I don't know the situation in the Philippines, or much about the Philippines at all. I agree that man is evil and should pay dearly for his vile behavior. I also see sex trafficking and pornography, where most trafficked people end up, as major problems that should be addressed and solved. To hate a facilitator of such things is right thinking, which would not be misandry.

The misandry and child-killing I referred to in my older post was according to my experience in the US. I do know of some groups in India and Kenya doing good things for women, things that actually are problems. These women fight for stronger penalties on rapists and teach single mothers job skills that they wouldn’t be allowed normally.

I would have no problems with the marches if they had something to say about battered women or sex trafficking, but they didn’t. There were only two things they marched for; hatred of Trump simply because he was a man, or more correctly a rich white man, and abortion, which is child-killing.

Something the media goons didn’t care to mention was that Trump offered to keep or even extend Planned Parenthood’s federal funding, ONLY if they stopped doing abortions, which they claim themselves is only 3% of their funding, but they absolutely refused, so clearly child-killing is more important to them than real women’s health. I won’t take that any further here. If anyone wants to go deeper into abortion, there’s already another thread on the topic in this forum. It’s old, but still valid since the subject isn’t going anywhere.

Now I’ll backtrack to answer some questions.

RubyTuesday asked me who is the man paying for these protests. His name is George Soros. He paid for the marches because he owns all their sponsors. He has his hands in pies all over the world, and that makes him the most dangerous man in the world right now. He has enough money to buy out other countries’ governments.

“I just believe that if someone births a baby and puts it up for adoption, they should be reimbursed to offer an alternative to make abortion less attractive.”

I wanted to answer this when it was first posted, but I was frequently interrupted from making that post. I also hope the answer to this can clarify some more things that I see confuse other people.

Aniihya, When an infant is put up for adoption, the agency pays for all the birth mother’s medical and living expenses throughout her pregnancy, at least in domestic adoptions. I don’t know the situation with international agencies. These domestic adoptions are expensive because of that extra payout. All expenses paid is a significant compensation don’t you think?

The only reason people don’t go this route is because of ignorance. Too many people don’t know that adoption agencies pay for baby expenses, because they aren’t allowed to know. This is forced ignorance. I don’t have the resources to adopt a child myself, but I can tell people about it.

There is one more statement I wished to make, but for now, I hold back.
Last edited by FyreT1ger on Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.

User avatar
FyreT1ger
Member for 14 years
Conversation Starter Author Conversationalist Friendly Beginnings Novelist Donated! Contributor Lifegiver

Next

Post a reply

Make a Donation

$

RPG relies exclusively on user donations to support the platform.

Donors earn the "Contributor" achievement and are permanently recognized in the credits. Consider donating today!

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron