Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World


Off-Topic Discussions

1,651 to 1,700 of 3,118 << first < prev | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | next > last >>

I'm sure everyone will be happy to learn that Comrade Lange was permitted to return to South Africa.

Down with the Tripartite Alliance!

Workers to power!

Vive le Galt!


Irontruth wrote:
Partially it's a fundamental difference in strategy. At my heart, I'm an incrementalist. Take success where you can get it, even while you keep fighting for the bigger picture. Instead of saying "this isn't enough", I'd rather hear "let's snowball this success into the next challenge".

So, I've been mulling this over for the past week, particularly after the Zimmerman verdict, and here's my problem:

Back in the sixties there were tons of incrementalists out there, marching, sitting-in, getting their heads bashed and, in some cases, getting killed.

And the centerpiece (or one of them, anyway) of the CRM was the Voting Rights Act, which has now been neutered.

So, instead of a situation where the black activists are being party poopers and not celebrating with the homosexualists, we've got a set of Supreme Court decisions where black rights are actually being thrown back, oh, let's say, half a century.

So much for incrementalism, I guess. Anyway, in retrospect, I think the tone of the Crenshaw et. al. piece isn't bitter enough.


Speaking of the Zimmerman verdict:

Hee hee!


Again, I'm not disagreeing with the facts on you on this.

Also, I think it's hyperbolic to say black rights are now exactly the same as they were in 1960. There are definitely people who are trying to push it that way.

I definitely don't agree with the man, but I do have some begrudging respect for John Roberts. He's not wrong in that a better metric than a frozen place and time should be required for our laws. Just because things were that way once, doesn't mean they always will be. A better metric would be one that looks at a broader data set, has some way to update what its looking at.

Unfortunately, he can't strike it down and replace it with more appropriate language.

It really sucks that this came up now and he made the decision now. The best we could possibly hope for from congress is a new bureau, with a head that requires senate approval, which they refuse to fill for the next 50 years.

No one will ever win me over with bitterness.


Irontruth wrote:

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the facts on you on this.

Also, I think it's hyperbolic to say black rights are now exactly the same as they were in 1960. There are definitely people who are trying to push it that way.

I believe you're more conversant with stats than I am, but pretty much all of the cynics and fatalists and borderline conspiracy theorists that I've read all state that by any index of quality of life, blacks are worse off than they were before the CRM.

Add to that the slew of states that are prepped to ram through Voter ID laws ("I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter turnout machine" said Ohio GOP heavyweight Doug Preisse) and it's sure going to look like ye olden times soon enough.

But, maybe, it's only turning the clock back 40 years.

Sovereign Court

I was disappointed that the Zimmerman thread got shut down before I had a chance to post, I found that verdict absolutely unbelievable, and as much as I wished it didn't have to do with race it does smack of an old time lynching. The facts were that an armed man stalked an unarmed teen first in a car and then after an angry call to 911, fallowed the teen on foot. The kid is murdered and the southern state of Florida decided to let the good old boy off.

But getting back to sexism, we had another case in Florida where a woman fired a shot into the air to scare off her abusive husband and she got 20 years?!

I am so glad that I don't live in Florida,


Yeah, Marissa Alexander.

More bullshiznit.

The Exchange

Guy Humual wrote:

I was disappointed that the Zimmerman thread got shut down before I had a chance to post, I found that verdict absolutely unbelievable, and as much as I wished it didn't have to do with race it does smack of an old time lynching. The facts were that an armed man stalked an unarmed teen first in a car and then after an angry call to 911, fallowed the teen on foot. The kid is murdered and the southern state of Florida decided to let the good old boy off.

But getting back to sexism, we had another case in Florida where a woman fired a shot into the air to scare off her abusive husband and she got 20 years?!

I am so glad that I don't live in Florida,

If this smacks of lynching what does it mean that Carl Rowan got away with what he did?

Never heard of him? yeah, media racism at its finest. And since when is a mexican looking fellow a "good ol boy"?


Citizen R.'s analogy would be more fitting if Carl Rowan had killed the intruder instead of shooting him in the wrist.

Also, the idea that if you haven't heard of Carl Rowan you're a dupe of the racist media is kind of stupid seeing as how it happened 25 years ago.

Oh yeah, and it was covered in the media.

For example.

I can't prove it, but I also doubt that Citizen R. would have heard of him either if it hadn't been for him being brought up on all the right-wing websites.

The Exchange

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Citizen R.'s analogy would be more fitting if Carl Rowan had killed the intruder instead of shooting him in the wrist.

Also, the idea that if you haven't heard of Carl Rowan you're a dupe of the racist media is kind of stupid seeing as how it happened 25 years ago.

Oh yeah, and it was covered in the media.

For example.

I can't prove it, but I also doubt that Citizen R. would have heard of him either if it hadn't been for him being brought up on all the right-wing websites.

Local newspaper actually, story on dubious self defense claims. He hit wrist because he shot like crap, not because he did not intend harm.


Well, he claimed that he was aiming at his feet.

Regardless, the teenager didn't, you know, die, making it a pretty poor analogy for a lynching or for Trayvon Martin's death.

The Exchange

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Well, he claimed that he was aiming at his feet.

Regardless, the teenager didn't, you know, die, making it a pretty poor analogy for a lynching or for Trayvon Martin's death.

He did not die for luck, and because he survived we get both sides of the story. We do not know all of the facts in the martin zimmerman case but it is hardly the same as a lynching, and may indeed be self defense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Free Republic listserve

"Carl Rowan shot a teenager, Racist, or just stupid? Virtually identical to Trayvon shooting"

Virtually identical?

a) Rowan was on his own property.

b) Rowan didn't follow the teenager.

c) Rowan didn't kill the teenager.

d) Rowan was arrested and tried without mass demonstrations demanding that he be held accountable.

Citizen R., you should really try to come up with analogies that aren't stupid.

The Exchange

And a fun new theory is that travon attacked him thinking Z was gay, based on the phone conversation with his friend. Not likely but then again i don't buy that Z cared about race either. but as i have said from the start, the FACTS cannot eve be known

The Exchange

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Free Republic listserve

"Carl Rowan shot a teenager, Racist, or just stupid? Virtually identical to Trayvon shooting"

Virtually identical?

a) Rowan was on his own property.

b) Rowan didn't follow the teenager.

c) Rowan didn't kill the teenager.

d) Rowan was arrested and tried without mass demonstrations demanding that he be held accountable.

Citizen R., you should really try to come up with analogies that aren't stupid.

And got little media attention. i have heard a LOT of stories of EVERY case of a white person shooting a black turned into the evil white man hunting the poor african even when it was clear that the black had started a fight, been where they didn't belong(another's house), etc. But when the aggressor is black it is barely mentioned that an attack happened. Of course i live close to detroit, the home of black racism.


It got little media attention?

I see 1988 articles from: People, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, and The LA Times all on the first page of a Google search.

Page 2: Orlando Sentinel, Christian Science Monitor, The Morning Call (whatever that is).

Page 3: The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Associated Press.

I'm going to stop now.

Sovereign Court

Race shouldn't have come into either trial. You stalk and kill an unarmed teen you should go to jail. You use an illegal hand gun to shoot an unarmed nearly naked teenager that was simply trespassing on you property then maybe you should also go to jail. I'd be more likely to give that fellow a pass though as he wasn't looking for a confrontation. That's all I'm going to say about either of these cases as I don't want to further derail this thread.


At this point, I feel like I am the one who always keeps this thread going when everybody else gives up on it.

And that makes me feel like I should be the one who gets to decide what this thread is about.

And I think this thread should be about, well, everything.

Sovereign Court

I disagree


Irontruth wrote:

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the facts on you on this.

Also, I think it's hyperbolic to say black rights are now exactly the same as they were in 1960. There are definitely people who are trying to push it that way.

I definitely don't agree with the man, but I do have some begrudging respect for John Roberts. He's not wrong in that a better metric than a frozen place and time should be required for our laws. Just because things were that way once, doesn't mean they always will be. A better metric would be one that looks at a broader data set, has some way to update what its looking at.

Unfortunately, he can't strike it down and replace it with more appropriate language.

It really sucks that this came up now and he made the decision now. The best we could possibly hope for from congress is a new bureau, with a head that requires senate approval, which they refuse to fill for the next 50 years.

No one will ever win me over with bitterness.

OTOH, it was fairly easy to get off of the list of areas requiring preapproval.
wiki wrote:
The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the 10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities.

Several areas had done so. Not a lot, but then a lot of them kept engaging in discriminatory behavior, as witnessed by the laws that kept getting struck down.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
OTOH, it was fairly easy to get off of the list of areas requiring preapproval.
wiki wrote:
The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the 10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities.
Several areas had done so. Not a lot, but then a lot of them kept engaging in discriminatory behavior, as witnessed by the laws that kept getting struck down.

I had mentioned this up-thread. It's also worth noting that the decision doesn't get rid of preclearance, it just invalidates the formula that was used for most of the jurisdictions on the list. A number of jurisdictions are still subject to preclearance because a federal judge added them to the list (so called 'bailed-in' jurisdictions). For instance the state of Arkansas and county of Los Angeles are still subject to preclearance.

There were also a number of jurisdictions on the list under the formula who were presumably the not because of current issues but because the never asked to be bailed-out of the list. Bronx, Kings, and New York counties, for instance. Of course, maybe I'm wrong about the amount of voter discrimination engaged in in those counties.

Liberty's Edge

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
At this point, I feel like I am the one who always keeps this thread going when everybody else gives up on it.

I haven't abandoned it, I just have very little to say at the moment!

Especially with the recent focus on racial politics/intersectionality, which I am incredibly unqualified to talk about, because 1) I'm white; and 2) While we have racial tensions here with the Aboriginal people, it's nowhere near as bad/charged as it seems to be in America with African Americans. I find it really hard to grok some of the situations that happen over there because of how... different it is.

But I read what you post..... usually. :P


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the facts on you on this.

Also, I think it's hyperbolic to say black rights are now exactly the same as they were in 1960. There are definitely people who are trying to push it that way.

I believe you're more conversant with stats than I am, but pretty much all of the cynics and fatalists and borderline conspiracy theorists that I've read all state that by any index of quality of life, blacks are worse off than they were before the CRM.

Add to that the slew of states that are prepped to ram through Voter ID laws ("I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter turnout machine" said Ohio GOP heavyweight Doug Preisse) and it's sure going to look like ye olden times soon enough.

But, maybe, it's only turning the clock back 40 years.

Don't get me wrong, African American's still have it really rough in this country. I had a pithy way of saying it a second ago, but I've been drinking.

Oh yeah, I'll go back to the earlier comment, you almost never invite a family member (especially a son or daughter) over to dinner, and they announce to you they're black (and you had no clue).

Gay rights had it waaaaay easier. White, male, protestant conservatives had to think about how they're viewpoints affected family members (who were gay). They aren't confronted, in a very personal way, about the difficulties of being black in america. No matter what Andrew R would like to claim.


Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:

I was disappointed that the Zimmerman thread got shut down before I had a chance to post, I found that verdict absolutely unbelievable, and as much as I wished it didn't have to do with race it does smack of an old time lynching. The facts were that an armed man stalked an unarmed teen first in a car and then after an angry call to 911, fallowed the teen on foot. The kid is murdered and the southern state of Florida decided to let the good old boy off.

But getting back to sexism, we had another case in Florida where a woman fired a shot into the air to scare off her abusive husband and she got 20 years?!

I am so glad that I don't live in Florida,

If this smacks of lynching what does it mean that Carl Rowan got away with what he did?

Never heard of him? yeah, media racism at its finest. And since when is a mexican looking fellow a "good ol boy"?

Explain to me the difference between chasing someone down (not on your property) and someone being on your property...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
At this point, I feel like I am the one who always keeps this thread going when everybody else gives up on it.

I haven't abandoned it, I just have very little to say at the moment!

Especially with the recent focus on racial politics/intersectionality, which I am incredibly unqualified to talk about, because 1) I'm white; and 2) While we have racial tensions here with the Aboriginal people, it's nowhere near as bad/charged as it seems to be in America with African Americans. I find it really hard to grok some of the situations that happen over there because of how... different it is.

But I read what you post..... usually. :P

I have a Kiwi friend I game with, Cam Banks, he's been here for years and still doesn't completely grok the US in a lot of ways. We're weird f#$*ing bastards. Seriously. I'm sometimes amazed at how people think this place is 'normal', when its one of the most f+*#ed up places on the planet.

Sure, we're economically and culturally dominant over the past 50-60 years, but we are so f+##ed up compared to a lot of places. It's just that recently the cracks are starting to show.


I wonder how different the whole Zimmerman scenario would have been if Trayvon was white, or jewish...

The Exchange

Alice Margatroid wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
At this point, I feel like I am the one who always keeps this thread going when everybody else gives up on it.

I haven't abandoned it, I just have very little to say at the moment!

Especially with the recent focus on racial politics/intersectionality, which I am incredibly unqualified to talk about, because 1) I'm white; and 2) While we have racial tensions here with the Aboriginal people, it's nowhere near as bad/charged as it seems to be in America with African Americans. I find it really hard to grok some of the situations that happen over there because of how... different it is.

But I read what you post..... usually. :P

To say being white make you unqualified to talk about race is the dumbest thing ever. white is a race that still deserves rights and dignity as much as any other, not to be demonized as always the offender and shamed into quietly being a victim ourselves.

The Exchange

Icyshadow wrote:
I wonder how different the whole Zimmerman scenario would have been if Trayvon was white, or jewish...

We never would have heard about it, the race machine cares only for blacks and rarely hispanics and only if the "aggressor" is white. i use the quotations because even in clear self defense cases it is whitey's fault. And all of the black on black crime in chicago, NYC and detroit is meaningless to the media whores like sharpton and jackson

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am fully unqualified to talk about the sufferings of black people in any kind of authoritative manner. It isn't about my lack of "dignity" as a white person or any kind of guilt.

I simply recognise when the topic isn't about me and doesn't require my lack of knowledge or insight on the topic. I'd rather leave that to the minorities in question to speak about.

I don't pretend to know what's best for native peoples, trans* individuals, religious minorities, etc. The same applies for black people.

So how about those gender/sex politics?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I wonder how different the whole Zimmerman scenario would have been if Trayvon was white, or jewish...
We never would have heard about it, the race machine cares only for blacks and rarely hispanics and only if the "aggressor" is white. i use the quotations because even in clear self defense cases it is whitey's fault. And all of the black on black crime in chicago, NYC and detroit is meaningless to the media whores like sharpton and jackson

I cannot fathom the world you live in.


Guy Humual wrote:
I disagree

Oh yeah?

Well, I say this thread is now about flow wands!

(Comrade Irontruth, this performer is from Minneapolis. Any chance you could hook a goblin up?)


Never seen her at the local game stores.

Sovereign Court

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I disagree

Oh yeah?

Well, I say this thread is now about flow wands!

(Comrade Irontruth, this performer is from Minneapolis. Any chance you could hook a goblin up?)

DIS GUY MUST BE A ALIEN OR SUTIN


Walking Distance/Love Is Lies


Alice Margatroid wrote:

I am fully unqualified to talk about the sufferings of black people in any kind of authoritative manner. It isn't about my lack of "dignity" as a white person or any kind of guilt.

I simply recognise when the topic isn't about me and doesn't require my lack of knowledge or insight on the topic. I'd rather leave that to the minorities in question to speak about.

I don't pretend to know what's best for native peoples, trans* individuals, religious minorities, etc. The same applies for black people.

So how about those gender/sex politics?

Shiznit White Feminists Say

Skip to the end for the appropriate punchline.


Norwegian woman faces 16 months in jail in Dubai for reporting that she was raped.


Yeah, I saw that earlier today. Horrible shiznit.

The fact that half of the article is about the quasi-legality of alcohol in the UAE makes it kind of bizarro.

Sovereign Court

As a general rule the middle east is not a place to visit if you're female.

Liberty's Edge

I have no idea why anyone would want to go to Dubai anyway. It's a serpent under the flower in the desert built on the backs of slaves, where the laws exist only if you don't have the money or influence to get around it. Terrible place.

Recent events in Russia have crossed off that part of Europe for me as well. Arrested for holding my girlfriend's hand? *shakes head*


According to one official from USC, it's not rape if he doesn't finish.


Guy Humual wrote:
As a general rule the middle east is not a place to visit if you're female.

It would appear that you can add USC to that list, ladies.

Sovereign Court

On a happier note I saw Robin Thick Parody video linked to the side of the site that Irontruth linked with the sad University of Southern California story. Funny stuff. What's even funnier are some of the YouTube comments. Seems some people don't care for the objectification of men or something.


A tongue in cheek rant about how fake gamer guys are ruining gaming.

Sidenote - I also love his anti-piracy joke near the 1:50 mark.


So, I thought half of that was pretty funny, where he was a gay nerd being driven to distraction by pretty boytoy fake gamers in tight shirts who made him guilty of his boners, but the other half that seemed like he was parodying an argument, but I'm not sure what argument (one against female gamers?), I didn't quite get.

Liberty's Edge

He's flipping the argument about fake female gamers ruining the purity of gaming. Because after all, everyone knows women aren't real gamers. Hence the vagina reference towards the end of the rant.


Thank you, Citizen K(e)rensky.

Hmm. Never ran into the fake female gamers argument, thank god. Of course, I'm probably a fake gamer. Only games I've played this year were Baldur's Gate and Dynasty Warriors ??? on my PS2.

Liberty's Edge

It's a disturbingly common point of view on more mainstream gaming forums and so forth. Especially with the reaction to Ms. Sarkeesian's videos, or other reactions to related complaints. Not to mention things like what is documented on Fat, Ugly, Or Slutty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's a great music video on the topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How strange. I've been involved in quite a few subcultures over the past 25 years, and even the more thuggish of them (heavy metal juvenile delinquents and hardcore) didn't try to dissuade women from joining in. I mean, at the very least, how else were you going to get laid?

Sovereign Court

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
How strange. I've been involved in quite a few subcultures over the past 25 years, and even the more thuggish of them (heavy metal juvenile delinquents and hardcore) didn't try to dissuade women from joining in. I mean, at the very least, how else were you going to get laid?

I think the thing you might be missing is the term gamer is used by us to mean people that are into RPGs, video games, War gamers, and even board gamers, but I'm pretty sure the mainstream just thinks of gamers as video gamers. I'm sure there's a large percentage of video gamers that have no idea that RPG pen and paper games exist. When I hear about misogyny in the gamer community its usually referring to video gamers. Maybe not always, I know there's a lot of poorly socialized folks out there in both communities, but Jim was probably talking about video gamers as it is his field.

1,651 to 1,700 of 3,118 << first < prev | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World All Messageboards