all 75 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 94 points 1 year ago (1 child)

45% of female voters cast their ballot for Trump.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Honestly, if women, as well as persons of color and the LGBTQIA+ community, having rights and freedoms is such a threat to America - both as a country and a “way of life” - and they cannot coexist, then as an American I would happily say goodbye to America.

    What that means, and how that would work, scares the ever loving shit out of me, but no one deserves the shit America does to them.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I feel the same, but also fuck that I was born here and I will not be run off by goddamn nazis. On one hand I’d like to leave, the other hand would like to punch every fascist over and over until THEY fuck off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Oh, America is not alone here. Plenty of places without even that one generation

    Honestly, I have to suspect a giant coordinated effort against women and feminine aspect of life spanning damn hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Otherwise I cannot fathom and explanation of how things have gone so ugly for so long

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Hard-fought victories eroded one at a time, and then all at once.

    Fuck.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    To me, it's unclear what "hard-fought" means here. Are there any rights that aren't hard-fought? Are hard-fought rights different from the other ones?

    Every right we have has been fought for. The fights often came at a significant cost, with sacrifice, and required conviction. I remember how "hard-fought" was used, and what it used to mean, so it really makes me wonder how you're using it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hard-fought victories

    I don't think women's rights (especially the right to work) have been "hard-fought" in any way.

    Sure there have been protests and riots of women who demanded these rights, but that did jack shit to change the situation. What really changed the situation was the insight of capitalists that they could get more workers, and thus more productive ability, if women joined the workforce. All it took for that is to influence the media to make these new policies seem preferable, and the people accepted it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's an utterly fucking bizarre position considering that women in the workplace far predate women's rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • This is, unfortunately, a common libertarian take. The best economic decision says to not discriminate as the more workers you have, the more you produce, thus the free market is what really created these civil rights.

    It completely ignores history, but that is a pretty common libertarian take.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    Gays: yeah, we know.

    Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (classification of mental disorders, for which people were institutionalized against their will) also in 1974. Big year for civil rights I guess.

  • source
  • [–] 142 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I mean yes this is bad, but America is not going to end itself just because women have rights. A lot more to it than that reductive take

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 140 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Right? It's not just women. But also because POC have rights. And gays. And because trans people exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago*

    This is also part of it.

    Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.

    • Tommy Douglas

    https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

    Thomas Clement Douglas PC MP CC SOM MA LL.D (20 October 1904 – 24 February 1986) was a Scottish Canadian politician who served as Premier of Saskatchewan from 1944 to 1961 and Leader of the New Democratic Party from 1961 to 1971.... ...Douglas was voted "The Greatest Canadian" of all time in a nationally televised contest organized by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2004.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    This quote was so, so upsetting as a survivor.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    And a couple generations earlier (1920), women finally got the right to vote.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is the title a quote from something?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 44 points 1 year ago

    [O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a "rape", but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.[34]

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The post isn’t wrong, but there’s some nuance to it. With the credit thing, it’s true that women couldn’t reliably get their own credit until 1974. That’s when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, which finally made it illegal for banks to require a husband or male co-signer. Before that, a lot of women could be and were turned away outright, even if they had the income to qualify. So the way it’s phrased is a bit simplified, but the gist is accurate.

    The marital rape part is more complicated. Nebraska was actually the first state to outlaw it in 1976, and then other states slowly followed. By 1993, every state had removed the explicit marital exemption from their rape laws. That said, a lot of states still had narrower definitions, weaker penalties, or loopholes, so saying it became “illegal nationwide in 1994” smooths over a messy process. What really happened is that by the early ’90s, no state could outright say “marital rape doesn’t exist” anymore, but enforcement and protections still varied a lot.

    So, while the tweet compresses the details, the broader point stands: these changes are incredibly recent. We’re only a generation or two removed from a time when women couldn’t open a line of credit on their own and had virtually no legal protection if their husbands assaulted them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    51 years is 2 generations.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Quote aside, Catherynne is a great writer and all around human being. If you like fantasy, look her up.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    Republican America is just English speaking Russia.

    Russia decriminalized spousal abuse in the 2010s and it directley led to a wave of women losing their lives because the police didnt even bother showing up when their partners were beating the brakes off them.

    Legally, Russia changed domestic violence from a criminal offense (under Article 116 of the Criminal Code) into an administrative infraction with only fines or short detentions for "first-time, non-serious cases."

    and if you can believe it, the champion of this "conservative, traditional values" policy, was a woman.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Sooooooo depresssssssinggggggg

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I was born 1995. Yikes! I can't believe that.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    This is utterly stupid to blame women getting rights as the cause for the inevitable fascist takeover of the US...

    I understand she's probably a great person, but using reductive logic even as an unobvious joke is harmful to idiots, and most of the country is idiots.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think the regime probably seems pretty good to pro-life anti-queer christian white and east-asian women.

  • source
  • [+] -27 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [+] -41 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    That's absurd. We've backtracked 50 years of one of the more progressive nations with regards to women, not 200. Entirely rage bait without nuance.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    fucktards literally voted in a senile rapist with a history of financial fraud and bankruptcy because the other option was a female. You were literally segregating people just based on color of their skin 50 years ago so thats a low bar. You have states that literally ban life saving abortions. The church influences your government like the 1800s. Political bribes are legal because founding fathers wanted just the rich to run the country. Invades countries without any repercussions for war crimes.

    You’re a third world country in a gucci belt.

    Much of the development happened because the enormous wealth in the stolen lands and brain drain from countries you sabotage or by hiring literal nazis. The founding fathers knowingly paved ways for redneck nazis with how they created broad legislation to benefit the rich white male, but propaganda and hollywood creates a progressive smokescreen.

    Time for some introspection.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -69 points 1 year ago (21 children)
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    ...what?

    Society survives because of all its members, if women just stopped providing then society would collapse. They have been coerced using oppression and force to keep providing despite discrimination, not thanks to it.

    How is it undesirable for any reasonable person, man or woman, to have equal rights?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    There's actually a fairly compelling argument that women will destroy civilization if they don't have equal rights. They're more likely to produce children if they aren't finding fulfillment in other ways (e.g. having a successful career). More children = more strain on the biosphere (increasing climate change, wars, pandemics, etc.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Are you just trying to come up with the most asinine insane takes to argue with people? Or do you actually believe this horse shit that youre typing...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Where's the error in that argument? I didn't come up with it, BTW. Isaac Asimov argues this in an essay in his book The Roving Mind.

    I support feminism in any case for other reasons, but I think it's interesting that there's a strong argument for it even if you're a misogynist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Do you know that gay people exist?

    Do you expect gay men to make straight men happy? Do you expect gay women to make straight men happy?

    Or, what was your plan for them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)