Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

[Dragon Angel]

Ray ... no. Just, no. Pandering to the interests of racists or insecure men and appeasing every single unreasonable demand by either is untenable. You're never going to get activists of any nontrivial amount to agree to that. Because let me say it in no uncertain words, that's insane. No amount of being a devil's advocate or spitting apologia is going to change that fact. Pointing out "but at least MLK was not Malcolm X" does not actually refute anything. It's totally unrelated to the context of our conversation. In fact, that in itself is ahistorical, as there were indications both men came to an understanding of each others' positions. And in case you conveniently forgot about it, the threat of revolution was one of the key factors behind white men acknowledging black men deserve to be treated like human beings.

[ray245]

Ray ... no. Just, no. Pandering to the interests of racists or insecure men and appeasing every single unreasonable demand by either is untenable. You're never going to get activists of any nontrivial amount to agree to that. Because let me say it in no uncertain words, that's insane. No amount of being a devil's advocate or spitting apologia is going to change that fact. Pointing out "but at least MLK was not Malcolm X" does not actually refute anything. It's totally unrelated to the context of our conversation. In fact, that in itself is ahistorical, as there were indications both men came to an understanding of each others' positions. And in case you conveniently forgot about it, the threat of revolution was one of the key factors behind white men acknowledging black men deserve to be treated like human beings.

Who said anything about pandering to them? Articulating to them what sort of role they can still play in a fairer world is not pandering. However, at the same time you also need to find out how to articulate to them and be able to break their bubble. If more of the same isn't able to do any difference, you have to try out some other ways to approach them.

Secondly, do you really think there are any there any feminist that is actually going to undertake a revolution? Sure, there are powerful symbolic options like strikes, but we are talking about a country that is quite good at breaking up strikes. Shouting angry arguments and insulting idiots isn't showing teeth in any form. People have been insulting Trump for a long time during the election campaign, and he's still the President.

[Dragon Angel]

I don't mind trying to find a way for them to take part in being more productive. I'm not against that. What I'm against is somehow finding a way to involve them that also manages to gravely offend a significant amount of people part of the movement, for a good reason. It's pointless to try to reach out in a way that alienates your base, which is what shoehorning men into International Women's Day or white people into Black History Month does, for a good reason. You're saying "but we have to do something different!" without thinking that "something" could be disproportionately counterproductive to the cause. "Golly gee, this fire we have here, you know what we should pour on it to contain it? This nearby bucket of gasoline!"

It's like these men as you imply so can't stand the prospect of not being the center of attention for even one single day, that they want to crash the party of another group in order to get yet one more show. One day of the year dedicated to women. One day, of 365 days in a year, of uncountable years in their lives. Seriously, now?

I'm sorry if they find their egos so bruised that they can't let someone else take the spotlight for a little amount of time, but, that's life? Women have already accepted that this world has been shitty to us for the past astronomical time unit of human history, so why can these insecure men not accept maybe this one little concession is a helping hand toward a better society? Let a group that has been shit on for all time be able to highlight their achievements, ones they made with their own wills. But no, that's too much, they still have to have that one small day. This is plain greed.

We could try to find ways to bring them into the fold without stepping on other people in the process.

I'm not going to reply to that talk of revolution ( ) because I have no idea why you're dramatically conflating different pieces of our conversation.

[ray245]

I don't mind trying to find a way for them to take part in being more productive. I'm not against that. What I'm against is somehow finding a way to involve them that also manages to gravely offend a significant amount of people part of the movement, for a good reason. It's pointless to try to reach out in a way that alienates your base, which is what shoehorning men into International Women's Day or white people into Black History Month does, for a good reason. You're saying "but we have to do something different!" without thinking that "something" could be disproportionately counterproductive to the cause. "Golly gee, this fire we have here, you know what we should pour on it to contain it? This nearby bucket of gasoline!"

And what other methods are effective in doing so? I kept seeing people saying we're doing all we can to change people's mind, but on the other hand, people are saying that people aren't even listening to them. It takes an extraordinary amount of effort to break people out of their bubble, just like how people need to see images of Selma march, or death camps before they are willing to change their minds.

And the feminist movement has made a far worse compromise before. Supporting a war that sent millions of people to pointless death is what gained them the right to vote in the UK.

It's like these men as you imply so can't stand the prospect of not being the center of attention for even one single day, that they want to crash the party of another group in order to get yet one more show. One day of the year dedicated to women. One day, of 365 days in a year, of uncountable years in their lives. Seriously, now?

I'm sorry if they find their egos so bruised that they can't let someone else take the spotlight for a little amount of time, but, that's life? Women have already accepted that this world has been shitty to us for the past astronomical time unit of human history, so why can these insecure men not accept maybe this one little concession is a helping hand toward a better society? Let a group that has been shit on for all time be able to highlight their achievements, ones they made with their own wills. But no, that's too much, they still have to have that one small day. This is plain greed.

Sadly, there's a very large group of men that clearly feels that way. So how are you going to change their minds?

We could try to find ways to bring them into the fold without stepping on other people in the process.

I'm open to suggestion.

I'm not going to reply to that talk of revolution ( ) because I have no idea why you're dramatically conflating different pieces of our conversation.

Because you're the one that talks about social movement requires some teeth?

[Dragon Angel]

And what other methods are effective in doing so? I kept seeing people saying we're doing all we can to change people's mind, but on the other hand, people are saying that people aren't even listening to them. It takes an extraordinary amount of effort to break people out of their bubble, just like how people need to see images of Selma march, or death camps before they are willing to change their minds.

And the feminist movement has made a far worse compromise before. Supporting a war that sent millions of people to pointless death is what gained them the right to vote in the UK.

When you find a method that doesn't involve stepping on others' senses of accomplishment, you let me know. I never claimed to have all the answers. I just know that Trudeau's specific answer is greatly flawed.

Sadly, there's a very large group of men that clearly feels that way. So how are you going to change their minds?

I'm open to suggestion.

Something that requires more thought and nuance than two randos on an Internet forum alone can contribute to.

Because you're the one that talks about social movement requires some teeth?

We were talking about the Civil Rights Movement and rev---forget about it.

[ray245]

When you find a method that doesn't involve stepping on others' senses of accomplishment, you let me know. I never claimed to have all the answers. I just know that Trudeau's specific answer is greatly flawed.

My position is there really isn't. The only other option if you don't want that will be some form of armed conflict. Any form of peaceful change requires the dominant party to be willing to concede ground. Do you have any negotiation in which you don't have to concede anything at all? One side already holds all the best cards. Whether you hold the morally right position is not going to change the other side's mind. Appeal to morality and logic is a poor form of negotiation in the real world.

Something that requires more thought and nuance than two randos on an Internet forum alone can contribute to.

That is just as good as saying there isn't any alternative you could offer.

We were talking about the Civil Rights Movement and rev---forget about it.

The civil rights movement is a social movement. Put it this way. Has there been any major social change that has been achieved without some form of concession being made or actually undertakes a revolution?

[Dragon Angel]

My position is there really isn't. The only other option if you don't want that will be some form of armed conflict. Any form of peaceful change requires the dominant party to be willing to concede ground. Do you have any negotiation in which you don't have to concede anything at all? One side already holds all the best cards. Whether you hold the morally right position is not going to change the other side's mind. Appeal to morality and logic is a poor form of negotiation in the real world.

You'll be surprised how far appealing to morality will go. That is, in fact, another part of how LGBTQ rights started to take shape in the millennium. People realized that it was immoral for LGBTQs to have curtailed rights, because they realized being LGBTQ is a biological desire, not a flight of fancy, as was popularly assumed. Going back all the way to the prelude to the Civil War, abolitionism was based heavily on the immorality of slave owning.

That is just as good as saying there isn't any alternative you could offer.

Sorry, I must have missed it but, when did I become the sole arbiter of right and wrong?

The civil rights movement is a social movement. Put it this way. Has there been any major social change that has been achieved without some form of concession being made or actually undertakes a revolution?

It's much more complicated than that. It would take a paper's length to explain how social changes come about, and not all social changes come about the same way. Unfortunately, I have not the energy to get into this here.

[Shroom Man 777]

I guess this is how allies can be useful, by helping thick-headed people pull their heads from their asses.

Because honestly, I can see how people from marginalized groups will just shake their heads and roll their eyes at all this whiney "BUT PLEASE GIVE THE WHITE MANGS SOME COOKIES TOO PRETTY PWEASE" crap.

I get that people who are in the shit and who have been in the shit their entire lives don't have the patience or the time to waste on this.

[Dragon Angel]

I guess this is how allies can be useful, by helping thick-headed people pull their heads from their asses.

Because honestly, I can see how people from marginalized groups will just shake their heads and roll their eyes at all this whiney "BUT PLEASE GIVE THE WHITE MANGS SOME COOKIES TOO PRETTY PWEASE" crap.

I get that people who are in the shit and who have been in the shit their entire lives don't have the patience or the time to waste on this.

He gets it.

There are a few admittedly who trash on the idea of allies altogether, but I ... don't share that thought process. I love allies. The more allies, the merrier we all are. It's just, allies need to know their place. Be there to support, but don't overstep your bounds, etc.

[ray245]

You'll be surprised how far appealing to morality will go. That is, in fact, another part of how LGBTQ rights started to take shape in the millennium. People realized that it was immoral for LGBTQs to have curtailed rights, because they realized being LGBTQ is a biological desire, not a flight of fancy, as was popularly assumed. Going back all the way to the prelude to the Civil War, abolitionism was based heavily on the immorality of slave owning.

It's also about overturning the homophobes fear that they won't turn gay or have gay trying to rape them. The Civil war was also tied to changing a social-economic system in the US, especially with the rise of industrialization. It's never about morality alone.

Sorry, I must have missed it but, when did I become the sole arbiter of right and wrong?

I never said you are. However, if you think the current method isn't working, then it would be really helpful to suggest an alternative.

It's much more complicated than that. It would take a paper's length to explain how social changes come about, and not all social changes come about the same way. Unfortunately, I have not the energy to get into this here.

Of course, it is more complicated than that, but I believe people being willing to give concession plays a very crucial role in changing society. Other factors do play a role, but we cannot ignore the concessions that were being made.

I guess this is how allies can be useful, by helping thick-headed people pull their heads from their asses.

Because honestly, I can see how people from marginalized groups will just shake their heads and roll their eyes at all this whiney "BUT PLEASE GIVE THE WHITE MANGS SOME COOKIES TOO PRETTY PWEASE" crap.

I get that people who are in the shit and who have been in the shit their entire lives don't have the patience or the time to waste on this.

I get that. But I don't think it is possible to change the mind of enough thick-headed members on current methods alone.

[Shroom Man 777]

I guess this is how allies can be useful, by helping thick-headed people pull their heads from their asses.

Because honestly, I can see how people from marginalized groups will just shake their heads and roll their eyes at all this whiney "BUT PLEASE GIVE THE WHITE MANGS SOME COOKIES TOO PRETTY PWEASE" crap.

I get that people who are in the shit and who have been in the shit their entire lives don't have the patience or the time to waste on this.

He gets it.

There are a few admittedly who trash on the idea of allies altogether, but I ... don't share that thought process. I love allies. The more allies, the merrier we all are. It's just, allies need to know their place. Be there to support, but don't overstep your bounds, etc.

Allies or wannabe allies trip a lot of still have a lot of hangups from the preconceptions they are hopefully trying to work on.

There are allies. There are also people who don't really get how it works, who might not know what's the deal with pronouns or micro-aggressions or appropriation (which is complex) or whatever, but totally recognize and act against the wrongs done by the system and by the fuckfaces as totally wrong and can be considered as co-belligerents.

Anyway, we know that systemic shittery is harmful in many ways. And one of the downsides of a lifetime In The Shit might be the lack of patience to bother with the arduous process of correcting other people's major malfunctions or jaws-of-life-ing their heads out of their asses.

So if those of us who aren't in Total Shit check our privileges, we can see that we've got some leeway to be the ones who'll Patiently Hand Out Cookies to those who haven't gotten on with the program yet... like, some "woke" yuppie can sip a frappuccino and calmly explain why police brutality is utter shit in a calm and cool way that a person who's know loss or who has had prolonged negative exposure just can't be assed with.

I get there is the need for PR. Like... those ladies who sat in the whites-only section of the busses, the one the Civil Rights movement decided to publicized the most was the lady who had good PR. IIRC there was another lady who actually did it first but the movement decided not to make her "The Face" of their effort because she was combative rather than calm, and they didn't want to upset all these fragile sensitive segregationist porcelein pisspots.

On the other hand, fuck it, MLK never decried or denounced the rioters because he knew that would give the assholes justification and quotes for their derisive bullshit. So he only condemned the conditions that led to the rioters, a rhetorical approach that actually reinforces the rationale behind the riots as outpourings of outrage and exhaustion and anguish at said conditions.

This must be considered in an age where the alt-right movement LOVES to cherry-pick examples of wrongheaded thick-headed approaches. It's soul food for them, Chicken Soup for the Delicate Porcelain Pisspots. So like MLK, care must be exercised because the alt-right will also use liberal hesitation and liberal weak-kneedness (i.e. HuffPo apoligism articles for Milo Yiannopolous or whatever... ) as justification or as further reinforcement of their reprehensible crap.

I guess this is how allies can be useful, by helping thick-headed people pull their heads from their asses.

Because honestly, I can see how people from marginalized groups will just shake their heads and roll their eyes at all this whiney "BUT PLEASE GIVE THE WHITE MANGS SOME COOKIES TOO PRETTY PWEASE" crap.

I get that people who are in the shit and who have been in the shit their entire lives don't have the patience or the time to waste on this.

I get that. But I don't think it is possible to change the mind of enough thick-headed members on current methods alone.

That's why I mulled upon the roles of allies.

Anyway... weak-kneed compromising approaches are what got us into this situation. I don't buy the idea that the assclowns were galvanized because too many people were calling racists racists, that's like saying the Bible-thumpers got their way because too many people were calling creationists morons. I wouldn't hold back the pro-choice movement out of fear of what the pro-life idiots would do. I won't get in the way of those anti-rape activists on campus because, why, it might piss off fratboy MRA turdbuckets?

Fuck them and their shaitan with a spray-tan. Killer Mike was right.

I told y'all suckers, I told y'all suckers. I told y'all on RTJ1, then I told ya again on RTJ2, and you still ain't believe me. So here we go, RTJ3

[ray245]

That's why I mulled upon the roles of allies.

And how do you build allies? The women of WW1 did that by supporting nationalism and a pointless war just to show they can help men in their stupidity. It's utterly hard to build alliea. Take Emma Watson as an example. Her entire feminist campaign is about including men in the effort, but she still gets the label of a femnazi by a large portion of people.

Anyway... weak-kneed compromising approaches are what got us into this situation. I don't buy the idea that the assclowns were galvanized because too many people were calling racists racists, that's like saying the Bible-thumpers got their way because too many people were calling creationists morons. I wouldn't hold back the pro-choice movement out of fear of what the pro-life idiots would do. I won't get in the way of those anti-rape activists on campus because, why, it might piss off fratboy MRA turdbuckets?

Fuck them and their shaitan with a spray-tan. Killer Mike was right.

I told y'all suckers, I told y'all suckers. I told y'all on RTJ1, then I told ya again on RTJ2, and you still ain't believe me. So here we go, RTJ3

Who said anything about not calling out misogynistic people for their actions? It's calling them out for being misogynistic and ending the conversations there because they are a hopless cause that doom a campaign to failure. It's why the Democrats lost this election because they think that merely calling Donald Trump out is enough to convince people to not vote for him. All the mocking has done nothing to change the result.

Donald Trump winning shows all the BLM, feminist and other social movement have failed. Thinking that things will magically change with time is a very bad approach.

[Dragon Angel]

It's also about overturning the homophobes fear that they won't turn gay or have gay trying to rape them. The Civil war was also tied to changing a social-economic system in the US, especially with the rise of industrialization. It's never about morality alone.

The fear about gay people turning you gay or gays wanting to rape you had already been on its way to disappearing before with the Religious Right's decline. It was when gay people were recognized as having a biological need to be gay when it was realized discrimination would be immoral as discrimination on anything else that is a part of your genetic code.

Abolitionism had roots starting in the Enlightenment, onto the Quakers questioning the morality of slavery.

Please learn history.

I never said you are. However, if you think the current method isn't working, then it would be really helpful to suggest an alternative.

I can't possibly come up with an answer that will work for most people alone. This is something you need a council of activists to deliberate on.

Of course, it is more complicated than that, but I believe people being willing to give concession plays a very crucial role in changing society. Other factors do play a role, but we cannot ignore the concessions that were being made.

So, once something is given to us (International Women's Day) in good faith, we should be expected to return that on demand? That doesn't sound like it was given to us at all, then. The people asking for this are asking for a return on a gift society gave to us.

Go on and give one of your friends a birthday gift, and then the next year ask for it or one half of it back. That will net you a positive reaction.

[Dragon Angel]

Donald Trump winning shows all the BLM, feminist and other social movement have failed. Thinking that things will magically change with time is a very bad approach.

I ..... we are done here. At least, you and I are done. I had to read this a few times to get a grasp on just what you stated. If you seriously think this then you are too cynical to believe anything I am going to tell you.

[ray245]

The fear about gay people turning you gay or gays wanting to rape you had already been on its way to disappearing before with the Religious Right's decline. It was when gay people were recognized as having a biological need to be gay when it was realized discrimination would be immoral as discrimination on anything else that is a part of your genetic code.

That's what I'm saying?

Abolitionism had roots starting in the Enlightenment, onto the Quakers questioning the morality of slavery.

Please learn history.

I never said Quakers questioning of morality isn't if not one of the most important reason for the abolition of slavery. I'm saying the economic changes that occurs in America is also crucial.

I can't possibly come up with an answer that will work for most people alone. This is something you need a council of activists to deliberate on.

That's not a helpful reply at all.

So, once something is given to us (International Women's Day) in good faith, we should be expected to return that on demand? That doesn't sound like it was given to us at all, then. The people asking for this are asking for a return on a gift society gave to us.

Go on and give one of your friends a birthday gift, and then the next year ask for it or one half of it back. That will net you a positive reaction.

It's not a nice world. I think this is clear when we're living in a world where Trump is the most powerful man in the world.

And if you want a Birthday comparison, I would say this is more like acknowledging the friends that make your life a fulfilling one when you throw a party out of your own expense.

[ray245]

I ..... we are done here. At least, you and I are done. I had to read this a few times to get a grasp on just what you stated. If you seriously think this then you are too cynical to believe anything I am going to tell you.

It's fine if you think this is done. Just don't expect there to be any major positive change based on current tactics.

[Shroom Man 777]

That's why I mulled upon the roles of allies.

And how do you build allies? The women of WW1 did that by supporting nationalism and a pointless war just to show they can help men in their stupidity. It's utterly hard to build alliea. Take Emma Watson as an example. Her entire feminist campaign is about including men in the effort, but she still gets the label of a femnazi by a large portion of people.

So should she further bend over backwards? Allies can be built and have been built even without renaming Black Lives Matter, for example. BLM got allies. What I said is not mutually exclusive from building allies and does not require further bending over backwards or further cookies.

One must figure out which allies one wants and needs... and which potential allies will screw over the movement if one bends over too far backwards to get them. If the latter aren't worth it. MLK also had things to say about shitty allies who are worse than the actual opponents and opposers, who require too much babying and too much cookies to the point of being self-defeating for the movement.

Who said anything about not calling out misogynistic people for their actions? It's calling them out for being misogynistic and ending the conversations there because they are a hopless cause that doom a campaign to failure. It's why the Democrats lost this election because they think that merely calling Donald Trump out is enough to convince people to not vote for him. All the mocking has done nothing to change the result.

That's because the democrat establishment didn't substantiate what they said or show what their candidate had... and because the democratic establishment's history of compromise, rather than its radical actions, were what made it look unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie. That's not exclusive from calling out Trump and others for being fucks.

We're entering the territory of the argument where it is pretty much "Clinton lost because she didn't go across the line to appeal to GOP elements" versus "Clinton lost because she failed to rouse up the real left elements... because she spent too much time trying to appeal to GOP elements who are a waste of time, because she's pretty much John McCain or something."

Donald Trump winning shows all the BLM, feminist and other social movement have failed. Thinking that things will magically change with time is a very bad approach.

The DNC is not BLM or the feminists or the other social movements. Yes, I agree that thinking things will magically change with time, without the DNC pulling its head out of its ass and cease bending over to the GOP and "playing nice" when the other side is going nuclear and using false equivalences that shift things to the far-right whenever the Dems fail to say no and just stick with their "oh let's meet at the middle" way, is a very bad approach.

[Shroom Man 777]

+ that the DNC needs tactics tailored to weird ass US election bylaws regarding dellow felegates and electoral collages, despite the fact that they got more voters overall, does not mean that the social movements are wrong in what they are doing or in how they are doing it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Donald Trump winning shows all the BLM, feminist and other social movement have failed. Thinking that things will magically change with time is a very bad approach.

I ..... we are done here. At least, you and I are done. I had to read this a few times to get a grasp on just what you stated. If you seriously think this then you are too cynical to believe anything I am going to tell you.

The idea that a single election result where Trump's opponent won the popular vote despite massive domestic and foreign interference and her own litany of scandals, somehow constitutes a repudiation of all movements on behalf of women and minorities in favour of the Alt. Right, is not just absurd, but obscene.

Trump won a rigged game. Certainly, the fact that he was able to garner enough support even to do that indicates that social justice has a long way to go, but the public repudiated Trump. We were just then told that it didn't matter.

+ that the DNC needs tactics tailored to weird ass US election bylaws regarding dellow felegates and electoral collages, despite the fact that they got more voters overall, does not mean that the social movements are wrong in what they are doing or in how they are doing it.

Exactly.

[ray245]

So should she further bend over backwards? Allies can be built and have been built even without renaming Black Lives Matter, for example. BLM got allies. What I said is not mutually exclusive from building allies and does not require further bending over backwards or further cookies.

There's a big difference between having the occasional high profile male supporters and actually have enough male voters that would actively vote for increasing women's rights.

One must figure out which allies one wants and needs... and which potential allies will screw over the movement if one bends over too far backwards to get them. If the latter aren't worth it. MLK also had things to say about shitty allies who are worse than the actual opponents and opposers, who require too much babying and too much cookies to the point of being self-defeating for the movement.

Women right's to vote is in part won by bending over backward to support all the nationalists who wanted WW1. Yet those allies did keep their promise and expand the right to vote to women.

That's because the democrat establishment didn't substantiate what they said or show what their candidate had... and because the democratic establishment's history of compromise, rather than its radical actions, were what made it look unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie. That's not exclusive from calling out Trump and others for being fucks.

And Hillary also lost the states that did vote for Obama, showing they hate Hilary far more than they hate what Trump will bring to the Presidency.

We're entering the territory of the argument where it is pretty much "Clinton lost because she didn't go across the line to appeal to GOP elements" versus "Clinton lost because she failed to rouse up the real left elements... because she spent too much time trying to appeal to GOP elements who are a waste of time, because she's pretty much John McCain or something."

At the same time, you're ignoring the voters of Obama that did vote for Trump. You know, the people who showed they are perfectly willing to accept Trump for what he is to "bring their jobs back". You're also ignoring the large group of women who also DID vote for Trump. These are facts we cannot ignore.

The DNC is not BLM or the feminists or the other social movements. Yes, I agree that thinking things will magically change with time, without the DNC pulling its head out of its ass and cease bending over to the GOP and "playing nice" when the other side is going nuclear and using false equivalences that shift things to the far-right whenever the Dems fail to say no and just stick with their "oh let's meet at the middle" way, is a very bad approach.

The DNC is not the same as those social movements, but Donald Trump is anti-nearly all of those movements. Trump elected with the support of a number of women is sending out a message to other men that it's perfectly okay to be misogynistic towards women, and hot women will land on their lap if they are rich and powerful enough. How on earth are you going to reach out to all those men who saw how much they can get away with things?

There are far too many males that treat women in the manner which supposedly brings the most number of them to bed. Even some so-called "male feminist" is "joining" the movement for purely selfish reasons.

+ that the DNC needs tactics tailored to weird ass US election bylaws regarding dellow felegates and electoral collages, despite the fact that they got more voters overall, does not mean that the social movements are wrong in what they are doing or in how they are doing it.

If they do want change to happen via legal means, then yes, they have to make use of what the existing system have to offer. If they want simple majority votes to matter in US politics, this is what they have to change first.

The idea that a single election result where Trump's opponent won the popular vote despite massive domestic and foreign interference and her own litany of scandals, somehow constitutes a repudiation of all movements on behalf of women and minorities in favour of the Alt. Right, is not just absurd, but obscene.

Trump won a rigged game. Certainly, the fact that he was able to garner enough support even to do that indicates that social justice has a long way to go, but the public repudiated Trump. We were just then told that it didn't matter.

The keys to power in the US is not based on popular vote. It's about a sizable amount of women who were perfectly willing to vote for Trump. It's about what message Trump is sending to boys over the next four years as he is the most powerful man in the world. It shows how the current system can be exploited. The end of Apartheid via peaceful mean also depended on those in power, namely F.W. de Klerk to happen.

Moreover, let's not forget that the Republicans control all 3 houses of the government. Even if Hillary did win the presidency, a lot of her reforms will be blocked by Republicans in the senate and the Congress. It's a very long way to go before Democrats ( or those supporting these social movements) can even hope to control all branches of the government.

[ray245]

Edit: Put it this way, we cannot know how many people (especially men) that did vote for Hillary based on Trump's position towards feminist and BLM alone, but we do know there were a sizable amount of women that did vote for Trump despite everything he said.

[The Romulan Republic]

The keys to power in the US is not based on popular vote. It's about a sizable amount of women who were perfectly willing to vote for Trump. It's about what message Trump is sending to boys over the next four years as he is the most powerful man in the world. It shows how the current system can be exploited. The end of Apartheid via peaceful mean also depended on those in power, namely F.W. de Klerk to happen.

Yes, I am well aware that US Presidential elections are not decided by popular vote. Regrettably.

My point, as I would hope was obvious, is that Trump's election says nothing about where the sympathies of the majority of the American people lie. Or rather, it says that those sympathies are against Trump and his message.

As to the message being sent to the younger generations-most of them hate Trump. And if Trump is sending a message that its right to treat women like objects and hate and fear minorities, then it is all the more important that the opposition push back strongly against that message, rather than rolling over and conceding that social justice is a beaten cause.

Moreover, let's not forget that the Republicans control all 3 houses of the government. Even if Hillary did win the presidency, a lot of her reforms will be blocked by Republicans in the senate and the Congress. It's a very long way to go before Democrats ( or those supporting these social movements) can even hope to control all branches of the government.

They don't really control the Judicial branch yet, much less all the lower courts, and even the conservative judges on the Supreme Court aren't all far Right/Neo-Nazi Party line voters. Even successfully stealing a nominee from Obama via obstruction won't give the neo-fascists a rubber-stamp judicial branch.

The Congress is under Republican control, yes, but only in the Senate can that be attributed to the results of the voter (and even their, voter suppression makes it somewhat murky). The House is gerrymandered to hell.

That's not to say that the Democrats don't need to do a better job of reaching out to certain portions of the electorate, because we really, really do. But that's at least as much down to a backlash against corporate influence and corruption, both real and perceived, as it is due to a backlash against women and minorities, or against social justice.

The implication that Trump's "win" represents some kind of popular referendum on social justice is both factually ill-founded and morally repugnant.

[Shroom Man 777]

So should she further bend over backwards? Allies can be built and have been built even without renaming Black Lives Matter, for example. BLM got allies. What I said is not mutually exclusive from building allies and does not require further bending over backwards or further cookies.

There's a big difference between having the occasional high profile male supporters and actually have enough male voters that would actively vote for increasing women's rights.

One must figure out which allies one wants and needs... and which potential allies will screw over the movement if one bends over too far backwards to get them. If the latter aren't worth it. MLK also had things to say about shitty allies who are worse than the actual opponents and opposers, who require too much babying and too much cookies to the point of being self-defeating for the movement.

Women right's to vote is in part won by bending over backward to support all the nationalists who wanted WW1. Yet those allies did keep their promise and expand the right to vote to women.

And how do their approach compare to the Civil Rights movement afterwards? And the current women's protests in Poland and elsewhere?

+yes, OK historic women's rights groups did compromise with WW1-wanting nationalists. Considering politics back then and the newness of intersectionality, I would not be surprised if the women's rights people back then didn't even see it as "bending over backwards to support all the nationalists," maybe they were totally fine with what the nationalists wanted.

And that up there doesn't actually go against my point. That's like citing Dawkins and Hitchens being for the religious freedoms of atheists while simultaneously being islamophobic War on Terror cheerleader/bootlickers as, I don't know, some rhetorical refutation/response against secularists currently against islamophobia..

Anyway I'm reminded of this.

That's because the democrat establishment didn't substantiate what they said or show what their candidate had... and because the democratic establishment's history of compromise, rather than its radical actions, were what made it look unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie. That's not exclusive from calling out Trump and others for being fucks.

And Hillary also lost the states that did vote for Obama, showing they hate Hilary far more than they hate what Trump will bring to the Presidency.

Echo echo echo

We're entering the territory of the argument where it is pretty much "Clinton lost because she didn't go across the line to appeal to GOP elements" versus "Clinton lost because she failed to rouse up the real left elements... because she spent too much time trying to appeal to GOP elements who are a waste of time, because she's pretty much John McCain or something."

At the same time, you're ignoring the voters of Obama that did vote for Trump. You know, the people who showed they are perfectly willing to accept Trump for what he is to "bring their jobs back". You're also ignoring the large group of women who also DID vote for Trump. These are facts we cannot ignore.

How much of that was because of Hillary's problems vs. omg mean feminists mean African-Americans omg?

The disinformation of Hillary having an email server that transmorphed into a Decepticon arachnid that shot up soldiers in Benghazi, requiring A-10s and AC-130s to put down, and the Clinton Foundation being some front to abduct Haitian orphans and collect their blood for Hillary and Bill's undying Ventrue vampiric masters, and Hillary giving Secret Speeches to the Intergalactic Banking Clan over at Muunilist and thus being a Seperatist CIS-traitor; undeniably turned people off of Hillary but that's got nothing to do with, say, omg mean feminists omg meanie black lives matters.

I can see people who either didn't vote at all or who voted for Trump not because of their outright bigotry but because they bought into Trump's "drain the swamp, I am successful businesses" BS... though nonetheless their disregard for minorities' objections might be a hint of lower-grade discrimination... but then again, there are also minorities who couldn't stomach Hillary.

"Superpredators!" + prison-industrial complex Clintons, after all.

So no. I think you're conflating lots of issues and mixing them up with your narrow reductionist perspective. I don't think hardcore "Bernie or bust" leftists were put off by feminists or Black Lives Matter.

Hillary is not these movements. And these movements do not exclude Bernie/Obama-esque approaches to other subjects (i.e. economy, healthcare, etc.).

The DNC is not BLM or the feminists or the other social movements. Yes, I agree that thinking things will magically change with time, without the DNC pulling its head out of its ass and cease bending over to the GOP and "playing nice" when the other side is going nuclear and using false equivalences that shift things to the far-right whenever the Dems fail to say no and just stick with their "oh let's meet at the middle" way, is a very bad approach.

The DNC is not the same as those social movements, but Donald Trump is anti-nearly all of those movements. Trump elected with the support of a number of women is sending out a message to other men that it's perfectly okay to be misogynistic towards women, and hot women will land on their lap if they are rich and powerful enough. How on earth are you going to reach out to all those men who saw how much they can get away with things?

There are far too many males that treat women in the manner which supposedly brings the most number of them to bed. Even some so-called "male feminist" is "joining" the movement for purely selfish reasons.

A non-reprehensible GOPlite candidate would be a start.

+see above

+ that the DNC needs tactics tailored to weird ass US election bylaws regarding dellow felegates and electoral collages, despite the fact that they got more voters overall, does not mean that the social movements are wrong in what they are doing or in how they are doing it.

If they do want change to happen via legal means, then yes, they have to make use of what the existing system have to offer. If they want simple majority votes to matter in US politics, this is what they have to change first.

You're conflating US tactical circumstances versus the validity of the stance I'm espousing. What might be necessary for elections in the US, due to the way US elections are arranged, might not apply to the bigger conversation that also happens in places that, guess what, might kind of sort of possibly be not only in the USA.

Like the country where the person being quoted in the OP comes from.

[ray245]

The keys to power in the US is not based on popular vote. It's about a sizable amount of women who were perfectly willing to vote for Trump. It's about what message Trump is sending to boys over the next four years as he is the most powerful man in the world. It shows how the current system can be exploited. The end of Apartheid via peaceful mean also depended on those in power, namely F.W. de Klerk to happen.

Yes, I am well aware that US Presidential elections are not decided by popular vote. Regrettably.

My point, as I would hope was obvious, is that Trump's election says nothing about where the sympathies of the majority of the American people lie. Or rather, it says that those sympathies are against Trump and his message.

As to the message being sent to the younger generations-most of them hate Trump. And if Trump is sending a message that its right to treat women like objects and hate and fear minorities, then it is all the more important that the opposition push back strongly against that message, rather than rolling over and conceding that social justice is a beaten cause.

And I think Sophie Trudeau message is a form of push-back. Is it a form of concession? Yes! But it is also a form of push-back that could work. If your problem with sexism is that Trump is still seen as attractive to women, then you absolutely need to demonstrate this to be false. If you can't do it, then you will lose the fight.

They don't really control the Judicial branch yet, much less all the lower courts, and even the conservative judges on the Supreme Court aren't all far Right/Neo-Nazi Party line voters. Even successfully stealing a nominee from Obama via obstruction won't give the neo-fascists a rubber-stamp judicial branch.

The judicial branch alone is not enough to enact any large sweeping change. They can interpret existing laws, but they cannot make any new ones.

The Congress is under Republican control, yes, but only in the Senate can that be attributed to the results of the voter (and even their, voter suppression makes it somewhat murky). The House is gerrymandered to hell.

This is about who's in power. The people that voted for Republican has shown they're the more powerful side in US politics.

That's not to say that the Democrats don't need to do a better job of reaching out to certain portions of the electorate, because we really, really do. But that's at least as much down to a backlash against corporate influence and corruption, both real and perceived, as it is due to a backlash against women and minorities, or against social justice.

I'm sick of people telling me that a better job should be done without giving anyone a clear idea how to do so. The majority of White women did vote for Trump. So telling them that Trump is sexist is clearly not enough to change their minds.

The implication that Trump's "win" represents some kind of popular referendum on social justice is both factually ill-founded and morally repugnant.

Trump "win" represents which group holds the real keys to power. Having strong blue states along the coastal region is not enough to win US elections. How are the social movements going to convince the blue-collared workers in rust-belt states to support them?

And how do their approach compare to the Civil Rights movement afterwards? And the current women's protests in Poland and elsewhere?

+yes, OK historic women's rights groups did compromise with WW1-wanting nationalists. Considering politics back then and the newness of intersectionality, I would not be surprised if the women's rights people back then didn't even see it as "bending over backwards to support all the nationalists," maybe they were totally fine with what the nationalists wanted.

The civil rights movement that tried to make non-violent protest the face of the movement and allow themselves to be beaten nearly to death during the March in Selma? I see that as a form of concession.

Sure, the attitudes of women in WW1 would be drastically different from the people today, but to make agreement with those in power to send countless people to their death? Espousing male masculinity by shaming men into joining the war effort? How is that not a form of compromise?

And that up there doesn't actually go against my point. That's like citing Dawkins and Hitchens being for the religious freedoms of atheists while simultaneously being islamophobic War on Terror cheerleader/bootlickers as, I don't know, some rhetorical refutation/response against secularists currently against islamophobia..

Anyway I'm reminded of this.

Dawkins and Hitchens seem to be more against the concept of all religion than actually being advocates of total religious freedom. And yes, I think that image does speak about the point I am making.

White women as the "face" of feminism were probably far more effective in convincing a world which racism was far more prevalent in governments to give women as a whole the right to vote. Is that appalling? Yes.

Echo echo echo

Explain?

How much of that was because of Hillary's problems vs. omg mean feminists mean African-Americans omg?

The disinformation of Hillary having an email server that transmorphed into a Decepticon arachnid that shot up soldiers in Benghazi, requiring A-10s and AC-130s to put down, and the Clinton Foundation being some front to abduct Haitian orphans and collect their blood for Hillary and Bill's undying Ventrue vampiric masters, and Hillary giving Secret Speeches to the Intergalactic Banking Clan over at Muunilist and thus being a Seperatist CIS-traitor; undeniably turned people off of Hillary but that's got nothing to do with, say, omg mean feminists omg meanie black lives matters.

I can see people who either didn't vote at all or who voted for Trump not because of their outright bigotry but because they bought into Trump's "drain the swamp, I am successful businesses" BS... though nonetheless their disregard for minorities' objections might be a hint of lower-grade discrimination... but then again, there are also minorities who couldn't stomach Hillary.

"Superpredators!" + prison-industrial complex Clintons, after all.

And those are clearly enough to convince a majority of white women to vote for Trump.

So no. I think you're conflating lots of issues and mixing them up with your narrow reductionist perspective. I don't think hardcore "Bernie or bust" leftists were put off by feminists or Black Lives Matter.

Hillary is not these movements. And these movements do not exclude Bernie/Obama-esque approaches to other subjects (i.e. economy, healthcare, etc.).

The hardcore "Bernie or burst" supporters doesn't matter. It's the people who are willing to switch from supporting Bernie to supporting Trump that are the key concern. It's convincing more white women to vote for Trump that matters.

A non-reprehensible GOPlite candidate would be a start.

+see above

And how exactly are you going to get a candidate like that? That person would still need the support of the GOP base.

You're conflating US tactical circumstances versus the validity of the stance I'm espousing. What might be necessary for elections in the US, due to the way US elections are arranged, might not apply to the bigger conversation that also happens in places that, guess what, might kind of sort of possibly be not only in the USA.

Like the country where the person being quoted in the OP comes from.

This is very much an issue of who is in power and convincing those in power to give up on some of their current advantages. It's harder for feminist from the US to tell some third world country that their policies is not right towards women when they can point at Trump as an example of a "successful" US leader.

Sure, if we live in a world where the US isn't the dominant leader in cultural media, the US might matter less. But we are living in a world which Trump's abortion gag directly affects million of people around the world. The US do hold a massive amount of power. We simply cannot ignore that.

[Shroom Man 777]

Trump "win" represents which group holds the real keys to power. Having strong blue states along the coastal region is not enough to win US elections. How are the social movements going to convince the blue-collared workers in rust-belt states to support them?

You're conflating the power of those who voted for Trump with the power of those who chose to say no to either of them, who in abstaining thus enabled Trump to win. One can tap into the "power" of those who sat out without bending over backwards for those who voted for Trump.

By reducing it into two sides, you're overlooking other crucial factors.

The civil rights movement that tried to make non-violent protest the face of the movement and allow themselves to be beaten nearly to death during the March in Selma? I see that as a form of concession.

Sure, the attitudes of women in WW1 would be drastically different from the people today, but to make agreement with those in power to send countless people to their death? Espousing male masculinity by shaming men into joining the war effort? How is that not a form of compromise?

1.) MLK never denounced the riots and has stated that he knew the riots and the potential of violence were necessary in order for the establishment to be willing to concede or compromise to the non-violent MLK. So it's much more complex than MLK or the Civil Rights movement just one-sidedly bending over backwards to those in power. They made the other side concede too.

2.) Funnily enough that period of time, WW1, also saw less-compromising movements succeed in overturning the establishment.

White women as the "face" of feminism were probably far more effective in convincing a world which racism was far more prevalent in governments to give women as a whole the right to vote. Is that appalling? Yes.

Does it always have to be that way?

I think you're mis-gauging the parameters here. I think a more radical approach would be workable than the compromising approach. The DNC's neutering of progressives, its incremental approach and its compromise with the neoliberal order of things is what allowed the populists to rise. They didn't lose because they were Too Radical. We saw the effects of a change-centered approach in 2008 and 2012.

Echo echo echo

Explain?

I said "That's because the democrat establishment didn't substantiate what they said or show what their candidate had... and because the democratic establishment's history of compromise, rather than its radical actions, were what made it look unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie. That's not exclusive from calling out Trump and others for being fucks."

You said "And Hillary also lost the states that did vote for Obama, showing they hate Hilary far more than they hate what Trump will bring to the Presidency."

Which means Hillary was "unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie" etc.

Anyway. You're conflating movements like feminism and BLM with Hillary and the DNC's failures.

And those are clearly enough to convince a majority of white women to vote for Trump.

And those are separate from the omg meanie black lives matter omg meanie feminists. The DNC's failures include multiple dimensions.

The hardcore "Bernie or burst" supporters doesn't matter. It's the people who are willing to switch from supporting Bernie to supporting Trump that are the key concern. It's convincing more white women to vote for Trump that matters.

What about the normcore "Bernie or bust" people? What about the people who just sat it out instead of supporting Trump? Since he got less votes than her in the first place!

This is what I mean when I pointed out that some see Hillary and other DNC efforts to "reach across the aisle" (even in non-race non-gender matters) are futile, there will always be that GOP core that will always vote for the GOP. On the other hand, these efforts end up making Hillary and her "centrist" cohorts look like GOPlites and John McCain-y and end up just alienating or disillusioning other more progressive demographs who could've clinched the deal for the DNC.

Anyway, the DNC has been trying to appeal to the GOP base for forever!

And how exactly are you going to get a candidate like that? That person would still need the support of the GOP base.

My point is that the "GOP base" isn't only the demograph that can be tapped into. You've got a false dichotomy. I'm focusing on the potential anti-Trump anti-GOP voters whose numbers were turned off from voting for either one precisely because the DNC and Hillary are acting like GOPlites in trying to futilely bend-over and appeal to the GOP base...

This is very much an issue of who is in power and convincing those in power to give up on some of their current advantages. It's harder for feminist from the US to tell some third world country that their policies is not right towards women when they can point at Trump as an example of a "successful" US leader.

Sure, if we live in a world where the US isn't the dominant leader in cultural media, the US might matter less. But we are living in a world which Trump's abortion gag directly affects million of people around the world. The US do hold a massive amount of power. We simply cannot ignore that.

Urgh. What I mean to say is, if it weren't for shitty US electoral college systems, the "oh we gotta swing these states, we gotta prioritize these delegate-rich states that have zero people with messaging that'll disillusion the more-populous progressive coastal areas" wouldn't be as big of an issue.

"What might be necessary for elections in the US, due to the way US elections are arranged, might not apply to the bigger conversation that also happens in places that, guess what, might kind of sort of possibly be not only in the USA."

Yes, US prominence in the global sociocultural conversation cannot be understated. But nonetheless. Some of the issues bothering the US are things that other parts of the world have gotten over and dealt with already.

And while US progress is important, that doesn't mean that people in other parts of the world can only make progress by adopting the strategies US progressives had to use to sway the voters in Assfuck, Arkansas in the name of affecting the electoral college.