In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 19 2013 06:33 KwarK wrote: I think the gender expectations that society instills in men are at least as damaging as the ones that women get
I would have to disagree with that based largely on the measures of self worth.
Also, to me, feminism means anti-discrimination against women. which is a great way to reflect good goals that do not seek to "put women ahead" or some such shit people say. i found this picture on wikipedia its pretty nice. + Show Spoiler +
Why on earth would I go to all the trouble of creating a masculism movement if all the intellectual groundwork has already been done for me by feminism and what I actually want to achieve is identical to the goals of feminism. Feminism wants gender equality, that already means equality for men too.
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 Yoon u 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.
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.
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.
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.
I am not playing the game of Olympic Oppression. I am assuming that you believe that feminism as a whole is flawed because it only looks at one side and forgets the other. And you also state that feminism is biased since it focuses only on one issue. Maybe you are not looking that far back in time to the suffragist movement which means that there is a misunderstanding between us, but when it comes to issues like the right to vote, you cannot say that we need to look how both genders have been wronged when one sex has the right to vote and the other does not. It is like in anti-racism saying that we need to see how both the dominant group and the minority group have been wronged when the dominant group has the right to vote when one does not. Yes, both groups are wronged as made clear by people like Tim Wise, but much less so in the issue of suffrage where the issue is one-sided.
However, when talking about modern feminism which I am guessing you probably were, we often talk about men's issue and men's liberation and how men have been wronged by gender roles as well. For example, the expectation to be a "man", not to be a sissy, and not to be a faggot to give one simple anecdote.
Considering that I posted in response to Kwark identifying as a feminist who thought the intellectual framework for attaining a truly equal society had been put in place by feminists I thought it was obvious that I was talking about modern feminism not actually having that framework - unless the term modern feminism covered something which made it not actually feminism.
On December 19 2013 06:33 KwarK wrote: I think the gender expectations that society instills in men are at least as damaging as the ones that women get
I would have to disagree with that based largely on the measures of self worth.
Also, to me, feminism means anti-discrimination against women. which is a great way to reflect good goals that do not seek to "put women ahead" or some such shit people say. i found this picture on wikipedia its pretty nice. + Show Spoiler +
Why on earth would I go to all the trouble of creating a masculism movement if all the intellectual groundwork has already been done for me by feminism and what I actually want to achieve is identical to the goals of feminism. Feminism wants gender equality, that already means equality for men too.
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.
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.
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.
A simple extrapolation isn't going to work, no. But it would be just as, if not more foolish to dismiss the entire body of work based on one differing variable. Using that example, you would now have a rough idea on what dosages to start your Phase I trials on men and what side effects to look out for. Moving away from analogies, there are many many things that the Men's Rights Movements (if they were anything more than a temper tantrum at the moment) could learn from the history and present feminist ideas. Why did feminism evolve? What areas did it (and does it) fall short in?
Some examples of ideas that could be coopted and built upon include the theme of "The Expendable Male". As was pointed out previously in this thread, many present cultural depictations of men and male identity involve the relative expendability of men. The ways that a pushback against "The Damsel In Distress" has taken (see also Anita Saarkesian's work) could also be taken to address this issue.
Intersectionality is another important intellectual advance that Men's Rights Movements could benefit from. Feminism started to recognize that "woman" was far too broad a category, and that the experiences of women differed based on their circumstances, such as race and socioeconomic class. Similarly, not all men share the experience of the Cis White Middle Class Male (some might include Christian).
On the practical side, the MRM would also want to look at how rape has been handled. While admittedly this is moving pretty slowly, at least some progress has been made regarding the reporting, social stigma (bear with me on this Kwark) and consent-based (as opposed to action-based) definition of rape. For all the screaming about male rape victims being ignored by feminists, the MRM has taken zero positive actions towards the reduction of male rape and helping said victims. Guess who're the ones who most often decry comments such as "I hope <some hated person> ends up in prison with a bunch of rapists."? It sure isn't the MRM proponents. The whole idea of a rape-condoning culture came from feminism, and if the MRM wants to have to relearn the idea of consent-based sexual activity and bodily autonomy, they're fucking idiots.
Ditto on the idea of "safe space". And a zillion other things that the feminist movement has had to cope with and rethink.
Fucking up anonymous rape report hotlines is about the best that the MRM can manage now. And that says a lot.
On December 19 2013 22:24 Velr wrote: Interesting? It's like "captain obvious writes about uneducated/uninformed people"...
Most people that didn't really imform themselves about Insurance and why it is good to have tend to fear/dislike it...
In other news: People that don't know about planes, tend to avoid/fear flying People that don't know how to swim, are more likely to avoid/fear the sea. . .
The last part is even better: People that most likely will have to pay a penalty, tend to dislike the penalty more than people that won't have to pay it...
Wow... And someone gets actually paid for this "research". Mindboggling...
Because assumptions never got policy makers in trouble before, no never.
Just because something is obvious doesn't mean you don't need some kind of evidence supporting it, so when shit does hit the fan, people aren't left sucking their thumbs.
On December 19 2013 22:24 Velr wrote: Interesting? It's like "captain obvious writes about uneducated/uninformed people"...
Most people that didn't really imform themselves about Insurance and why it is good to have tend to fear/dislike it...
In other news: People that don't know about planes, tend to avoid/fear flying People that don't know how to swim, are more likely to avoid/fear the sea. . .
The last part is even better: People that most likely will have to pay a penalty, tend to dislike the penalty more than people that won't have to pay it...
Wow... And someone gets actually paid for this "research". Mindboggling...
Uninformed enough to not buy it but informed enough to know there's a penalty if they don't. Doesn't seem that obvious...
Congress Poised To Permanently Fix Its Medicare Payment Glitch
The two-year budget deal approved by the Senate Wednesday aims to prevent another government shutdown.
It also includes a familiar annual rider — language to avert a steep pay cut to doctors who treat Medicare patients. But this time might be different, with a fix that lasts. After more than a decade of temporary solutions, it appears Congress may be on the verge of permanently solving its persistent problem in the way it makes Medicare payments to doctors. ...
Indeed, the so-called Medicare doc fix, unlike the Affordable Care Act, is one of the few health issues that has enjoyed near unanimous bipartisan agreement. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have had the stomach to allow cuts in pay that, in recent years, would have topped 20 percent. Yet no matter which party has been in charge, the annual — and sometimes monthly — exercise to cancel the cuts has been painful.
"Since 2003, we've had to patch the SGR 15 times, at a total cost of $150 billion," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican.
The current patch cancels a scheduled 24 percent cut in doctor pay — at a cost of around $7 billion. And that's just for three months. But that's because this Congress that's now famous for doing almost nothing is poised to do something significant. It appears ready to repeal the flawed payment formula and replace it with a whole new system — one that pays doctors according to the quality of results they produce rather than the quantity of services they provide. ...
Indeed, all three committees in the House and Senate that oversee the Medicare program have now approved such legislation. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill last summer; and the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees followed suit just last week. In the normally more partisan House of Representatives, the votes on the bills were approved unanimously. ...
One big problem is that the bill would freeze physician pay at its current level for the next decade. ...
It might reduce a physician's incentive to share best practices with others, and to work toward improving care together, Hoyt says. "And we don't think that's a good policy at a time when we're trying to get more consistency in care."
Even if those issues can be worked out — and most people think they can be — there's another thorny issue involving how to pay the estimated $116 billion to $136 billion cost of eliminating the SGR. The difference depends on whether fees are frozen over the next decade or not. Most of the previous doc fee fixes — including the one in the budget bill passed Wednesday — have been paid for by cutting payments to other Medicare providers, usually hospitals. ...
Congress Poised To Permanently Fix Its Medicare Payment Glitch
The two-year budget deal approved by the Senate Wednesday aims to prevent another government shutdown.
It also includes a familiar annual rider — language to avert a steep pay cut to doctors who treat Medicare patients. But this time might be different, with a fix that lasts. After more than a decade of temporary solutions, it appears Congress may be on the verge of permanently solving its persistent problem in the way it makes Medicare payments to doctors. ...
Indeed, the so-called Medicare doc fix, unlike the Affordable Care Act, is one of the few health issues that has enjoyed near unanimous bipartisan agreement. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have had the stomach to allow cuts in pay that, in recent years, would have topped 20 percent. Yet no matter which party has been in charge, the annual — and sometimes monthly — exercise to cancel the cuts has been painful.
"Since 2003, we've had to patch the SGR 15 times, at a total cost of $150 billion," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican.
The current patch cancels a scheduled 24 percent cut in doctor pay — at a cost of around $7 billion. And that's just for three months. But that's because this Congress that's now famous for doing almost nothing is poised to do something significant. It appears ready to repeal the flawed payment formula and replace it with a whole new system — one that pays doctors according to the quality of results they produce rather than the quantity of services they provide. ...
Indeed, all three committees in the House and Senate that oversee the Medicare program have now approved such legislation. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill last summer; and the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees followed suit just last week. In the normally more partisan House of Representatives, the votes on the bills were approved unanimously. ...
One big problem is that the bill would freeze physician pay at its current level for the next decade. ...
It might reduce a physician's incentive to share best practices with others, and to work toward improving care together, Hoyt says. "And we don't think that's a good policy at a time when we're trying to get more consistency in care."
Even if those issues can be worked out — and most people think they can be — there's another thorny issue involving how to pay the estimated $116 billion to $136 billion cost of eliminating the SGR. The difference depends on whether fees are frozen over the next decade or not. Most of the previous doc fee fixes — including the one in the budget bill passed Wednesday — have been paid for by cutting payments to other Medicare providers, usually hospitals. ...
Democrats are still deeply opposed to merit-based pay schemes, in education as elsewhere. Disproportionately hurts average doctors in struggling hospitals without patients buying the most expensive treatments ... and all the rest. Cutting reimbursements to doctors will just force more to stop accepting Medicare patients. Bonus: Skip out of the regulatory penalty programs.
I don't know whether to laugh or facepalm the thought that Congress is puzzled at paying $116 billion to $136 billion. Billion, well we don't ever propose bills of that magnitude!
That guy looks like such a tool. The sad thing is that advertising is supposed to be a reflection of the targeted demographic, which would include me (except I have health insurance).
That guy looks like such a tool. The sad thing is that advertising is supposed to be a reflection of the targeted demographic, which would include me (except I have health insurance).
Welcome to the nightmare that is trying to get these kinds of guys to vote.
That guy looks like such a tool. The sad thing is that advertising is supposed to be a reflection of the targeted demographic, which would include me (except I have health insurance).
Together with this Colorado ad I think they have just about every demographic covered now:
That guy looks like such a tool. The sad thing is that advertising is supposed to be a reflection of the targeted demographic, which would include me (except I have health insurance).
Are we absolutely sure that isn't an ad designed by the opposition?
I don't know if "get talking" rings true when in the face of an "or else tax-penalty" type law. This aint advocating eating your veggies.
That guy looks like such a tool. The sad thing is that advertising is supposed to be a reflection of the targeted demographic, which would include me (except I have health insurance).
Are we absolutely sure that isn't an ad designed by the opposition?
I don't know if "get talking" rings true when in the face of an "or else tax-penalty" type law. This aint advocating eating your veggies.
WTF is going on with pajama boy's eyebrows? Every time that I look at that picture of that stupid hipster, I notice something else that is amiss. And what dude wears pajamas anyway? Is it a gay thing? Has it come back into style?
On December 20 2013 07:30 xDaunt wrote: WTF is going on with pajama boy's eyebrows? Every time that I look at that picture of that stupid hipster, I notice something else that is amiss. And what dude wears pajamas anyway? Is it a gay thing? Has it come back into style?
I think they were going for the whole early morning Christmas look. You know that stereotypical American Christmas morning thing movies and tv do. Dunno why they went for the manboy look.
On December 20 2013 07:30 xDaunt wrote: WTF is going on with pajama boy's eyebrows? Every time that I look at that picture of that stupid hipster, I notice something else that is amiss. And what dude wears pajamas anyway? Is it a gay thing? Has it come back into style?
Looks hipster techie to me. Obama's such a troll XD
That guy looks like such a tool. The sad thing is that advertising is supposed to be a reflection of the targeted demographic, which would include me (except I have health insurance).
Are we absolutely sure that isn't an ad designed by the opposition?
I don't know if "get talking" rings true when in the face of an "or else tax-penalty" type law. This aint advocating eating your veggies.
Does anybody not just roll their eyes? Is this some kind of heartwarming assuring message to one person in the demographic that yes, he can buy health insurance on an exchange now? I've gotta conclude that the ad guys were just off their rockers when they designed it.
On December 20 2013 07:30 xDaunt wrote: WTF is going on with pajama boy's eyebrows? Every time that I look at that picture of that stupid hipster, I notice something else that is amiss. And what dude wears pajamas anyway? Is it a gay thing? Has it come back into style?
Portland, Oregon resident here. If this phases you, I challenge you to walk through downtown Portland mid-day. I bet you wouldn't make it a couple of miles. Just so much god awful garbage way worse than this dipshit in the picture.
California signs up 53,000 for Obamacare in three days
Now that's a West Coast offense.
California's Obamacare insurance exchange enrolled more than 53,000 people in health-care plans in just the first three days of this week, a blistering pace that had officials crowing on Thursday.
"December is turning out to be an enormous month," said Peter Lee, head of the Covered California exchange.
Lee said the surprisingly strong level of enrollments—which comes just days before the key Dec. 23 enrollment deadline—puts the state on track to beat its original projection of signing up as many as 700,000 people in Obamacare insurance by the end of open enrollment in March.
From Oct. 1 until Nov. 30, a total of 109,296 people enrolled in private Obamacare plans sold on Covered California's website. ...
On December 20 2013 07:30 xDaunt wrote: WTF is going on with pajama boy's eyebrows? Every time that I look at that picture of that stupid hipster, I notice something else that is amiss. And what dude wears pajamas anyway? Is it a gay thing? Has it come back into style?
Portland, Oregon resident here. If this phases you, I challenge you to walk through downtown Portland mid-day. I bet you wouldn't make it a couple of miles. Just so much god awful garbage way worse than this dipshit in the picture.
Yeah, I've been to Portland, and I'm from the Bay Area in California, so I've seen quite a bit.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8RSOC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hJyF7wl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qkXWc5k.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xJ3QWAK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rbByJbU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9FYD4TY.jpg)
Does anybody not just roll their eyes? Is this some kind of heartwarming assuring message to one person in the demographic that yes, he can buy health insurance on an exchange now? I've gotta conclude that the ad guys were just off their rockers when they designed it.![[image loading]](http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.philly.barstoolsports.com/files/2013/03/merica.jpg)
