jademunky said:
Does the fact that she was crowdfunded by Breitbart & company make her Saul of Tarsus act more believable or less?
Post-production was funded on Kickstarter, after more typical funding sources failed her (and after all the footage had already been shot, mind you). Why did more typical funding sources fail her? To hear her tell it, when they found out that it wasn't a hit piece on MRAs they stopped being interested.
jademunky said:
Totally agree that these are serious problems but I don't see how feminism is to blame for workplace safety standards not being enforced properly, most feminists I have talked to would LOVE for the draft to be gender-neutral or better yet, done away with altogether.
Like I said to altnameJag, a lot of them will say that if cornered on the topic, but it's rare to see any do anything about it.
jademunky said:
Do men who actually seek custody get awarded it less often than women? My understanding is that the mother will often simply get custody by default simply because the man does not often contest it.
Generally women are disproportionately given custody up front unless there's a damn good reason she shouldn't have custody. Generally, if either parent fights a custody decision it will more often than not be adjusted in their favor. Here's the thing that gets ignored : the people fighting custody decisions are 1) self-selecting, 2) aware of their odds, and 3) do not possess unlimited means. One of the things that leads to is not challenging in the first place unless you have a good chance of winning.
jademunky said:
I will have you know, as a man, that my right to have an abortion has never been placed in jeopardy.
If you'd like a different way to think about it, ask yourself this: is consent to sex consent to support any offspring conceived? The answer as it stands is of course "no" for women (hence women being able to abort, adopt, or safe-haven abandon without anyone else necessarily being involved in the choice) and "yes, even if you didn't consent to the sex or were lied to about paternity, unless the mother doesn't want the child" for men.
I keep hoping some clever and unwilling father will abscond with his child from the maternity ward, take it down to the emergency room and safe-haven it just so we can see how equally those laws apply. I suspect he'd still hold legal responsibility to the child and also be arrested for kidnapping, but it would be an interesting case.
jademunky said:
Her views changed when she took money from white nationalists to make a propaganda film
She ran a Kickstarter campaign. Crowdfunding from whosoever might decide throwing her some money is worthwhile. No one doing so had any creative control over the film. Saying "took money from anyone willing with a Kickstarter account" would be a lot more honest than "took money from white nationalists", but not as useful to your intended narrative. She also did the rounds with media promoting her (which yes, did include Breitbart), which is not terribly surprising.
Did you know the team behind the game Valdis Story: Abyssal City (an *excellent* metroidvania title) took money from MRAs? I'm not even kidding, I know a couple of people who are MRAs and also happened to back that game because they like that type of game. Hell, I'd be surprised if there was anything on Kickstarter that *wasn't* backed by someone who you could deem some kind of evil, so long as you look closely enough.
Also, propaganda film? Is that your default position on any film about MRAs that isn't a hit piece? It's funny, I expect you'd feel the same way about a movie about feminism that took the same approaches most media does when dealing with MRAs.
jademunky said:
Agreed that both male and female circumcision should be against the law (excluding medical necessity obv.) but the two are not really comparable. It's like comparing someone with a hangnail to an amputee.
I don't know, both are practices that have origins in a mix of religion and controlling sexuality that are largely carried forth nowadays out of the sheer inertia of tradition.
Unless you meant in terms of what's done surgically, in which case you'd be right although there's a bit of legerdemain done with FGM statistics that's worth pointing out. Effort is made to get the image of FGM in people's minds to be infibulation (complete removal of the clitoris and labia, sealing up the hole leaving only a small opening to urinate and menstruate through) sometimes also called pharaonic circumcision, despite it being one of the less common forms of FGM (~9%) while including all varieties of FGM in the statistic of how often it happens. It would be like if I were to oppose male genital cutting by talking about penile subincision and bifurcation to make a point of how extreme it cam be, but then used numbers that include circumcision when talking about how often it happens.
I still find it ridiculous that "let's not do irreversible genital surgery on people too young to consent without good medical reasons" is such a damn controversial position. Especially since even in clean modern US hospitals we still manage to kill ~
altnameJag said:
Well, now there is. Not good enough, according to the courts.
They kinda lost a lawsuit over it.
EDIT: If you don't like the source of the first link, here's the decision in its entirety:http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-1234
There was a notice linking the site to AVfM from the point they brought up their white ribbon site, I actually checked Wayback. It went through a few permutations before the exact language I quoted, but it always explicitly linked the site to AVfM. Dunno why I'm wasting the words, I'd already said that it was scummy.
As an aside, I saw you linked WeHuntedTheMammoth. How are the quote mines treating David Futrelle these days, or has he just fully switched over to #ResistTrump full time?
altnameJag said:
Looks fair to me:
In the latest and perhaps decisive battle over the role of women in the military, Congress is embroiled in an increasingly intense debate over whether they should have to register for the draft when they turn 18.
Under the Senate bill passed on Tuesday, women turning 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018, would be forced to register for Selective Service, as men must do now. Failure to register could result in the loss of various forms of federal aid, including Pell grants, a penalty that men already face. Because the policy would not apply to women who turned 18 before 2018, it would not affect current aid arrangements.
Like, they
voted for it. What more "looking at what they do rather than what they say" do you want?
They voted for a military appropriations bill that had that glued to it -- which essentially means that they figured "will force our daughters to war, maybe, theoretically, in the future" would play better than "unwilling to properly equip our troops, vaguely responsible for dead soldiers." Especially since it could be omitted from the House version of the bill and dropped in the final version that gets the two in line. Y'know, like it was.
altnameJag said:
It's telling that Rep Duncan Hunter is exactly the sort of MRA douchebag I rail against: he brought up the idea that
the draft is sexist in committee and proposed making the draft affect everybody. Then the people he thought were going to oppose it...didn't. So he ended up
voting against his own amendment, because convictions are for other people.
I would have thought you would be all about people doing things "to start a conversation." He really picked the wrong way to do it if he wanted opposition though -- no one in Senate is going to drop a military appropriations bill over a social issue, when the House can simply remove it and then have the compromise bill not include it. It wouldn't be wildly different than KY Rep. Mary Lou Marzian's bill requiring a wife's permission to buy Viagra, if she'd tacked it as an amendment to the state's budget rather than as a freestanding bill.