Schadrach

I think nowadays they just use Facebook groups to shame men they don’t like. Are We Dating the Same Guy is the usual name for them.

…and they did this because they’d agreed not to do superdelegates in 2020 which meant they couldn’t use the same levers they’d been wielding in 2016 and before to put a thumb on the scale.

And it will be the greatest book you have ever read, just so bigly yuge, tremendous! Not like those Democrats and their small books, with the tiny writing and confusing words and no pictures.

…I tried. Just imagine the pitch gradually increasing and the first part being all enthusiastic, then him dropping to a low pitch and trying to sound all grave for the second sentence. Someone else better at channeling orange asshole-ese?

Was there a single state, where the popular vote was for Bernie but the super delegates swept in and gave it Hillary instead?

Mine. West Virginia. Hillary got 35% of the primary vote while Bernie only got 51% and therefore she got one more delegate than Bernie. She literally only ever needed 30% of the primary vote in any state because of superdelegates.

We had a local candidate who only ran in WV, whose whole purpose for running was to try to draw national attention to economically gutted regions of the state caused by the so-called war on coal who got 9% of the vote, and even he managed to outperform Hillary in one county (taking second, because Bernie won every county in WV) - when you’re behind a protest candidate anywhere, you done fucked up.

My point was there was lots of space in which to be anti-feminist which doesn’t mean “based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men”, because defining feminism as the idea than men and women should be equal and thus anti-feminism as the opposite of that is grossly ignoring the difference between dictionary definitions and practice.

It’s like saying someone is anti-Christian means that they hate their neighbors and oppose charity and community, and just ignoring all the things done by people placing themselves under that label allegedly in the name of that label.

an anti-feminist movement, which means it’s based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men.

Ever hear a saying to the effect of liking Christianity if it weren’t for the the Christians ruining it? As in that the ideals are fine on paper and in theory (love thy neighbor, care for the less fortunate, etc, etc), but in practice the adherents don’t really do them as such?

The same applies to feminism - in theory the idea is gender equality, but in practice it often isn’t.

I’ve been around long enough to remember when the standard feminist response to question about what should be done about male victims of abuse or sexual assault done by women was to dismiss them as not existing.

I remember a man opening the first men’s DV shelter in Canada (Men’s Alternative Safe Housing) and being denied funding because it wasn’t a women’s shelter until he could no longer keep it afloat from private donations and out of pocket funds so he had to close it and hanged himself in the garage. He left a left a four-page suicide note, condemning the government for failing to recognize male victims of domestic abuse and wrote that that he hoped his death would bring more awareness to the issue of male abuse. I wonder what ideology permeates domestic abuse services, again?

I remember big and loud feminist protests at the University of Toronto against checks notes a talk about suicide in men given by a former member of the New York board of the National Organization For Women (who he left when they opposed more equal child custody). If you’ve ever seen the “Big Red” memes with the red haired angry shouty feminist, they were inspired by a real person who was at this protest shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage with her “fuckface”. The group hosting the talk (CAFE) would go on to create another men’s shelter which still exists and is to my knowledge the only one in Canada.

Speaking of Jezebel, I remember them writing an article casually joking about the times they’ve been violent with their male significant others, including in one case hitting her boyfriend because he was worried he might have cancer.

I remember listening to a recording of a radio show on Soundcloud 9 years ago where Mary Koss (prominent sexual assault researcher - nearly all research on campus sexual assault in the US descends from her work, she’s the source of that 1-in-4 number that gets thrown around sometimes, and she coined the term “date rape” among others) was asked about male victims of female perpetrators and her response was to ask how that would even happen, how could a woman make a man have sex by force, threat of force or by incapacitating him? (I’d give you an exact quote but SoundCloud isn’t playing nice ATM, not sure if it’s the site or my adblocker- either way it’s close to her phrasing but I’m going from memory, the episode is Male Rape from You Were Here on WERS) and when given an example of a man being drugged into compliance declared that that wasn’t rape, it was just “unwanted contact.” You see, “rape” needs to be reserved for girls and women because men don’t feel violation or shame like real people women do.

Or when KY wanted to pass a law requiring family court judges operate from a rebuttable presumption of equal custody in contested child custody cases - that is that both parents having equal custody is what’s best for the child unless there’s a good reason for it to be otherwise. Out comes the feminist opposition and trying to align any supporters of it with domestic abusers.

And I could keep going like this for a while if I really wanted to, but probably 9/10 readers stopped several paragraphs ago.

So, we have a group of men looking at the state of the world (and in particular law/society on gender issues) and deciding they are just going to opt out of the whole relationships/marriage/children thing and swear off women. Is there any world in which that would not be described as misogynistic by default? The swearing off itself is seen as misogyny before you go even a step further.

But this proves my point - that it’s women swearing off men rather than the reverse causes it to be viewed more positively.

Am I missing something or is 4B essentially MGTOW for women?

Just viewed through a more positive lens specifically because it’s women.

Yeah, much like frontal lobotomy, severing the corpus collosum (sp?) was a popular treatment for a variety of mental issues for a time. But much like doing really elaborate twin studies on nature vs nurture it’s really hard to do a lot in that area without violating ethical rules today.

The people who voted for trump are, in their DNA, at their core, bigoted cowards that wouldn’t have been swayed by anything else - She has a vagina and she’s black - That’s all it was ever going to be.

" I was this close, Bill… I just wanted more policy details… More time… If only they didn’t make me vote for trump".

My Trump-supporting mother, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and sister would all cite “abortion is murder” and “criminal illegals” bullshit before Harris’ vagina or skin ever came into it.

I almost wish the Dems had run Biden despite his terrible debate performance so that people wouldn’t blame the Dems losing on Harris’ vagina and skin color instead of her terrible campaign.

Trump did about as well as he did in 2020, that Harris lost is because she did worse than Biden did in 2020. Fear of Trump wasn’t as fresh to animate the base and she only really courted moderate republicans and middle class white women in the latter stages of her (short) campaign and that hurt turnout and turnout is the most important thing for Dems.

I told her that it’s amazing that not one fucking republican as uttered those two words, “voters fraud”, since Tuesday night.

Oh, I’ve heard them use those words, mostly in context of claiming that their watchful eyes prevented those evil Democrats from being able to do it this time. You know, because the party that can’t win without voter suppression and gerrymandering believes that they are the party that can’t lose without voter fraud.

That’s how this works. You take reality and then make it mean what you want it to mean.

What’s “fun” is when you realize an awful lot of people do this with an awful lot of topics all the fucking time. Probably including yourself.

The Bible actually gives instructions on how to induce an abortion

It really doesn’t. What it does is describe a religious rite that’s a sort of combined paternity test/abortion if she’s unfaithful. The idea being that the priest does his thing, she drinks the dusty water and if the child isn’t her husband’s she’ll miscarry on the spot. If she doesn’t miscarry, then God has proclaimed it’s his kid and he should have more faith in his wife.

There’s nothing in the description of it that would tell one how to trigger an abortion without divine involvement.

The true culprit is men,

Being pro-life or pro-choice isn’t strongly genedered. It’s not like men as a class oppose abortion and women as a class defend it. I think you’d be shocked at the sheer number of women out there who oppose abortion, and the number of men who don’t. It would be more accurate to say that a swath of religious folks (Catholics and certain flavors of evangelicals) oppose it, and those in their social reach get pulled along with them, along with traditionalist conservatives who are all about controlling sexuality.

You mean when he finally dies and she inevitably releases a tell-all book to capitalize on the opportunity?

They left out one other important thing - like how you can see and interpret with users on other instances, each instance also has its own communities, and the community names are also @ whichever server hosts them. For example, there are multiple politics communities.

And groups hosting a Lemmy instances range from the Lemmy devs to a bunch of tankies to instances like the one I’m from, which is run by a group called SDF that’s been around since the 80s and had its start as a dialup anime BBS.

Texas killing this child for losing a pregnancy

Texas didn’t kill her for loosing a pregnancy - Texas killed her by making her losing the pregnancy take too long by terrifying doctors out of speeding the process along, causing her to be in and out of hospital ERs repeatedly while doctors essentially played “hot potato” with her despite all of them knowing what needed done out of fear of being thrown in prison for a century if they did it, causing her to eventually develop sepsis and die.

It’s much, much worse than “killing her for losing a pregnancy”, and exactly how awful it is and how it got to that point needs to be spelled out in detail. Otherwise you’ll have people pointing out that the Texas law has an exception for medical emergencies, and it needs pointed out and doubled down on that by the time the doctors were reasonably certain that a conservative Texas court would agree with them it was a medical emergency (aka she’d already developed a systemic infection), she was already doomed.

Tusday was maybe the best a thousand years ago but who cares?

Closer to two hundred years ago, since the law in question was passed in 1854. But the point was it’s that way for a reason, and that reason was a good reason at the time it was done. It seems so weird now because of social change that has since made it inconvenient.

It can also be changed if Congress wanted to, as it’s just a regular law and not part of the Constitution or something else that would be harder to change.

On my instance you just click “Communities” at the top and it gives you a list of communities with three options at the top Subscribed/Local/All just like the main feed. Click all and you can browse or search the list of all communities, though the search is not great.

It’s on Tuesday because that was actually convenient with the flow of business at the time. Most were Christian and wouldn’t work or travel on Sunday if possible, it often took a day’s travel to get to the nearest town with a polling place, and Wednesday was market day.

If Sunday and Wednesday are right out and you need a day’s travel time (which also can’t be Sunday or Wednesday) you’re basically left with Tuesday or Friday. And if you’re going to be in town for the market anyways then Tuesday makes more sense.

It is in November because that’s after the biggest harvests, but not so far after that the weather is likely to be rough. And it’s the Tuesday after the first Monday so that it can’t overlap with All Saints Day.

On the upside it could be changed with a regular old law, it doesn’t require an amendment or anything.

And sometimes that goes the exact opposite way. For example, Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted on an insanity defense and spent less than two months in counseling.