I will get flamed for this, but I think it's about people not really being able to even dialog about their own real interests, because they are being distracted by politicians & preachers who get them all worked up over abortion or "the Gay Agenda" or "Evilution" other bullshit non-issues. I know it's very patronizing of me to say this, but I think a some people are too ignorant to realize what really concerns them, when they have politicians and preachers telling them what they should be concerned about. Politicians and preachers who are just using them for power and $$$. Ignorance & misinformation by people they (A John Cougar Mellencamp recently said) "trust" because they don't understand that not everyone They see a world where liberals (like myself) are perceived as looking down on them (and I admit, it's a something I do...even here, I guess) and neocons are perceived as talking on their level, when they are really talking down to them. Politicians, both right and left, should spend a lot more fucking time listening to these people then talking at them.
Fundie is an entirely different subsection of voter with an entirely different set of points to argue with. Yet, you still stay with your party... Parties are the problem...
All good points bryce, but why not throw in union thugs, race pimps, envirowhackos, gun grabbers and politically correct do gooders? Cause if you had, I'd have been with ya, all the way. Demagogues are demagogues.
Funny thing. We'd been tight-fisted and managed to live within the country's means. And now that women have the vote it's the men's fault that we're in the jam? You must be a writer. You can stretch words way beyond their normally accepted meanings.
Yeah, I have once or twice encountered very poor "welfare mom" types who think they are entitled to a check. Once, while in an ER bay waiting for a broken clavicle to be tended to, I had to listen to some poor woman tell a social worker (and "ebonics") how she wasn't gonna care for any of teh babies she kept havin' and giving up, and how she didn't want anyone telling her that she had to, or telling her that she needed to used both control, because it was her body! The social worked was trying to talk her into getting an IUD at least, and into caring for her teenage daughter, who she was trying to get kicked out of the house because she and her daughter were both knocked up, and she wasn't gonna keep her baby, let alone help care for her daughter's baby, she didn't even want her daughter living with her to begin with! I was so upset, I wanted to beg the doc to sterilize the bitch. But honestly, despite what the Republicans say, people like this are not the rule. I really believe that most poor people want a hand up, not a hand out. I have rarely know anyone who was proud or happy to be on welfare. That "lady" in the ER may have been a Republicans worst nightmare, and a great welfare mom stereotype, but I really think she was the exception. But I think that the neocon idea of just letting people who try to come up from poor communities fend for themselves, trapped in systems that...well...keep them trapped...isn't the answer. Anymore then just giving them free handouts is. Seems one side wants to just give people fish, the other wants to say "get your own damn pole!!!" and nobody wants to really say "Here, I'll teach you..."
Granted there are people like that, I've seen it and it frustrates me. And yeah,m fuck 'em. But I think that often people on the Right stereotype all people on the left this way. Just as I probably tend to see all people on the Right as loudmouthed idiots like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reily, unless proven otherwise...
Not always I don't...I've been swayed towards the Greens and the Libertarians at times... I just see my party as the way lesser of two evils.
Well, when that's all you see and hear from "them"... Ah. but see, Rush and Bill are "entertainment"... Or at least should be.
I like parties. Sometimes there's chips and dip and beer and nibbles (I love nibbles!)...and those little piggies in a blanket...oh, and cupcakes toped with edible ball bearings!!!
Not quite. I agree with a lot of what bryce said, and this relates back to my earlier post. The working poor don't see a direct benefit to voting democrat. They make just enough that they don't see direct benefits from social programs. They do see and resent the income taxes and FISA coming out of their modest check (even if they get all that back plus EIC at the end of the year). In the same way, the extremely poor, who receive food stamps, ect. don't see a direct benefit to voting republican. Generally speaking (in very broad terms), the less you make, the less educated you are. This means you are more likely to vote without considering indirect/longer term benefits. Politicians pander to voters by offering something that is immediately satisfying. The poor get social welfare in some form. The working poor will get the emotional satisfaction that their "moral values" are being upheld and feel safer thinking that a republican is less likely to take any more of his meager check.... and the rich, of course get a tax break. So, in the end, the working poor are the ones who get stiffed. They get a false sense of security thinking that their brand of morality will be legislated, and mistakenly believe that their check is safer in the hands of a conservative government. The truth is, both parties are notorious spenders, they just spend on different things. Republicans give out $150 billion a year in corporate welfare and subsidies.... like the millions they GAVE to Disney to develop "brighter fireworks." Democrats spend tax money on things like health insurance for the children of the working poor. Not that I can excuse the democrats, entirely... they jump on the corporate bandwagon from time to time too... What kind of spending you think is better depends on your leanings, I suppose.
I'm not buying this theory. Men are no less spendthrifts than women (see: pork, protectionist subsidies, legislation protecting corporate interests, etc.) - especially when it comes to other people's money - and they certainly don't tend to seek less power over people than women. There really isn't a huge difference in the numbers of males who are liberal or conservative and the number of females who are liberal or conservative.; it's really not significant enough to drive such drastic changes in society. Rather women's suffrage was just one of the many, many changes that occurred at that time in history. And geez, y'all are going on like Hillary's the only one with socialized healthcare plans! I take this all as strong evidence that the quasi-misogynists are merely grasping at some idea that makes them feel good about themselves. This isn't the mark of critical, rational men. I would suggest that anyone interested in Lott's books (including the More Guns, Less Crime so many libertarians love) also get this book.
^ It's all part of a bigger theme. The feminization of the American male. It all started with the nanny state.
I'd like to take this moment to remind you that those of us who didn't own land up until this century were in the same boat. That's the part contemporary feminism neglects to teach... that the majority of the population of men were also excluded in those "civilized" nations.
Seems like this belief that all women a spendthrifts who support a nanny state is just a misogynist version of the radical feminist assertion that "All men are inherently aggressive/rapist/warlike/etc." You can't pigeonhole the sexes like that, it's more complicated. Granted, women, having the historical - and evolutionary role - as the caregiver of children may be, on the whole, more inclined to support social programs that protect kids. But to just say that "Because women can vote, now we have _____" is just an gross oversimplification. I am a father and *I* support many of these same social programs. Not to get too off topic...but a big beef I have with a lot of feminists is that they fall in the same trap as the misogynists they opposed do - labeling all men as X and all women a Y...(or, would it be more correct to label the men as "Y"? Anyway...) I have read feminist literature in college (and had MANY debates with my college housemate who was a feminist lesbian Wiccian!) and it seems like when a feminist says "Women (er...womyn, excuse me) are naturally nonagressive and nonviolent, and womyn don't crave power, or domination, and if women ruled the world there'd be no war." Sounds like a repackaged version of the sexist male idea that "Women aren't cut out to be soldiers, or be leaders!" or the old classic image of a father telling his son "Don't be such a girl!" when he cries. (Because girls are "weak", emotional", "fragile", etc...) Or "Women are more intuitive" from feminists sound to me like "Women are irrational!" or "Women are more in touch with nature then with machines and male phalocentric science!" sounds to me like "Women will never be good at mechanical stuff like fixing cars or flying planes." It's the very same bullshit from both sides, just spun different ways. ETA: I wish I knew more about fixing cars, so I could teach my daughters so they don't have to rely on men to do it for them! Same way I teach my son to cook or wash clothes.
The idea that modern society 'feminized' males collectively does not gel with the assertion that males are inherently independent individuals. If you whine about being feminized because you can't do or say what you want, then not only do you have a fantastical understanding of history, but you are nowhere near as strong and ruggedly independent as you imagine yourself to be!
Ladeez an gennelmun, we have a winnah! I am a feminist, and have had many rows with the sisters when they'd say something similar, and I'd respond: 'Two words: Margaret Thatcher'. It's why the 'feminisation of men' argument is bullshit: all that's happened is that since society has loosened up a bit, people have become far more accepting of a wider range of acceptable gender behaviour: there have always been 'masculine' women and 'feminine' men, they just don't feel the need to hide it so much. Do the long-timers remember that silly test that was posted here in the early days that said it could predict your gender based on your replies to certain questions? It invariably decided with about 90% certainty that I'm male, and I'm a lifelong heterosexual female.
IT'S THE SAME FUCKING THING!! That "hand up" bullshit is just some manufactured, feel-good political language for what, in practical terms, amounts to the same transaction. Are you taking my money and giving it to someone who has not earned it, but claims to need it more than me? Yes or no. Don't give me any jive about some people making better use of it than others. First, because we're not really allowed to pick and choose who may receive what is taken from us, so it could be someone who stubbornly digs their own hole or someone who legitimately suffers under circumstances beyond their control. And second, because regardless of the setting and context, that's not their money to accept. Doesn't matter how needy you are or how good of a reason you think you have, the fact remains that you have done nothing to earn a legitimate claim to that money, and would not be seeking comforting language like "hand up" unless, deep down, you know you have something to feel guilty about.
