US Politics Mega-thread - Page 724

On December 19 2013 09:35 Livelovedie wrote:

How do you figure that its better to fight for neithers' rights than to fight for both?

On December 19 2013 07:52 Nyxisto wrote:


And that's the biggest pile of crap. Sorry, but every person on this planet is shit confused when they leave college and actually enter the real world.Please show me one young person that is not worried about their "prospects for their emotionally fulfilled private life?

All i read out of Paglia's text are a bunch of stupid stereotypes. Men should behave like cave men, if they don't they're boys. Women should behave like cave women, if they don't they're either irritated raging lesbians or deeply insecure because women obviously aren't shaped for the complicated life that only rough men can endure.

She's basically asking today's generation to fall back into old role models that were already out of date 30 years ago.
I don't even know why she considers herself a feminist, even the average man is more progressive than she is.

On December 19 2013 09:41 Ghostcom wrote:


Because one shouldn't fight for gender rights - one should fight for human rights (of which equal treatment is one). Semantics at best - terrible play of words at worst, but it is nearly 2 AM so I'll just show myself off to bed :p

On December 19 2013 09:49 IgnE wrote:

The tension is that the culture, at least in the US, still values family and propagation of the species. Hence you get the princess ideology and women's enchantment with weddings, the wedding industrial complex, fairy tale endings, etc. The culture still teaches women to find Good Men who will take care of them and to raise a family, and essentially, be conservative, while at the same time telling them that they should go out and become entrepreneurs, which is just a fancy name for risk-taking. Paglia's point, perhaps not clear, is that the very expendability of men has allowed them to take the risks that built the society we live in. Women sense this too, and so you get Anne Marie Slaughter et al. talking about whether women "can have it all." They want the high-powered petit bourgeois career and the glamorous wedding and the happy family.

On December 19 2013 10:11 IgnE wrote:
Where is the sarcasm face Jonny?

Charlie Baker, Republican gubernatorial candidate, says he wants to move homeless families out of motels in his first year as governor
...
Baker laid out his plan for addressing homelessness as the state faces a spike in homelessness and a record number of residents being housed in hotels and motels on an emergency basis. Baker worked on the issue of homelessness when he was secretary of Health and Human Services under former Republican Govs. Paul Cellucci and William Weld. His plan focuses on creating individualized plans for homeless families and relying on regional organizations. While he would not commit to putting more money toward homeless prevention, he said the state could reallocate existing resources in a way that is more effective.

"Most people don’t dispute the fact that a hotel/motel is the most expensive option of all," Baker said.

Baker proposed creating assessment teams that would talk to each family currently housed in a motel and developing a plan for each family, which would address short-term needs and a long-term plan for entering stable housing. He would expand funding for the state's HomeBASE program, which provides financial assistance to pay rent, utility bills or security deposits for those otherwise eligible for a shelter. Baker said the program provides money to families who host relatives in their homes, and could be used to encourage homeless families to stay with relatives rather than in a shelter.

Baker would also rely on and increase state cooperation with local and regional organizations, and wants to give local organizations more flexibility in tailoring services to meet the needs of their community. In the long term, he said the state should establish criteria for measuring the effectiveness of programs in putting people into long-term housing, and should expand and fund the programs that are most effective. He wants the state to intervene before families become homeless, and to reform regulations to allow families to double up or have relatives stay with them in public housing, as long as there are no health or safety risks.

"We have a one size fits all system," Baker said. "Circumstances and situations families find themselves in vary tremendously. We need a more flexible approach."
...
Baker is facing businessman Mark Fisher in the Republican primary in September 2014. Democratic candidates include Massachusetts Treasurer Steve Grossman, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, homeland security expert Juliette Kayyem, former Medicare administrator Donald Berwick and doctor Joe Avellone. Health care executive Evan Falchuk and anti-gay pastor Scott Lively are running as independents, and venture capitalist Jeffrey McCormick is considering an independent run.

On December 19 2013 09:22 Ghostcom wrote:


Feminism is a movement fighting for right for women on the basis of the thought of gender equality. That is a one-sided approach which does not (necessarily) sum up to equality for men too. If you want true gender equality you need a balanced approach, fighting for the rights of both (or much better - neither) gender.

EDIT: I missed a post of yours higher up where you actually partly commented on this - it seems we use different definitions of feminist. I will however still argue that the understanding of gender issues is resting on a flawed foundation when your basis of understanding of such issues rest entirely upon the perception of one of the genders - which makes it doubly hilarious when people are calling egalitarians for misogynists.

On December 19 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

In stealth... waiting... to strike...

Anyways, an opening shot in the MA Governor race.

Link

On December 19 2013 10:47 Danglars wrote:

Somehow I don't see MA turning red anytime soon. They got any polls out on generic R vs generic D governor picks?

On December 19 2013 10:19 KwarK wrote:

I don't draw my basis for understanding the issues from women, I have a dick, eyes, ears and understanding. It's just I don't dismiss the entire framework created for dealing with exactly this kind of issue just because it's not mine.

On December 19 2013 19:23 Ghostcom wrote:


Your perspective isn't going to magically change just because you have a penis - your perspective is going to be coloured by your approach to the issue. Feminism is (originally) an approach to gender inequality which is based upon how one gender (women) are being wronged, and not how both genders are being wronged. It is like conducting a randomised clinical trial including only women and then extrapolating the results to men.

On December 19 2013 19:32 Shiragaku wrote:

Feminism was originally an approach to suffrage, most notably having the right to vote. I think it is fair to say that women have been wronged much more so than men in that regard.

And modern feminism talks about men's issues quite a bit. The most notable theorists include Robert Jensen, Jackson Katz, Michael Kimmel and Byron Hurt.

On December 19 2013 20:14 Ghostcom wrote:


Please explain how that says anything about who has been wronged the most? I think you are looking for a fight where there is none to be had.

Americans who lack medical coverage disapprove of President Obama’s health care law at roughly the same rate as the insured, even though most say they struggle to pay for basic care, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Fifty-three percent of the uninsured disapprove of the law, the poll found, compared with 51 percent of those who have health coverage. A third of the uninsured say the law will help them personally, but about the same number think it will hurt them, with cost a leading concern.

But with the law’s central provisions set to take effect in less than two weeks, uninsured Americans — precisely those it was meant to help — remain confused about it and fearful that it will increase their health care costs. And nearly six in 10 said they had not researched insurance on the online marketplace, even though, based on the demographics of the sample, many probably qualify for free or subsidized coverage.

The uninsured respondents were generally younger, poorer and less educated than the respondents in the general population. Three-quarters of the uninsured were between 18 and 44, and about one in eight had college degrees. Slightly more than half said they earned less than $30,000 a year.

The requirement to get coverage or pay a penalty remains unpopular among the general public, the poll found, with uninsured Americans voicing disapproval at a higher rate than the insured population. Seventy-seven percent of the uninsured said they disapproved of the mandate, compared with 65 percent of those who already have health insurance.