15
Recommendation RequestFeminist books for children and teens?
Just wondering what are some books you all would recommend for kids. thanks
whoaa...and now I feel a bit bad. I didn't like Tulsi one bit during the debates...I felt she was to robotic and off. I might need to reevaluate her...I'm impressed!
Same here, haha ā although thinking back Iām not really sure why I got that impression during the debates. Iāve listened to a few interviews with her since then and she actually seems pretty awesome.
She's a backstabbing piece of shit is why. She hamstrung Kamala Harris's campaign by reading a string of lies about her on the debate stage.
People have such short memories. It's crazy anyone thinks Tulsi is worth the time of day. Good for her for being correct on ONE thing, which is half as much as a broken clock.
Sadly, it's propaganda networks on social media, combined with paltry analysis on traditional media, that helps people out with these short memories.
And this bill is another stab in the back. As long as we have women's sports, I guess it's fine for girls to have to share showers and dorm rooms with males.
Wow, strawmanning much?
Not at all. She's taking away our most visible, most persuasive argument against the legal conflation of sex and gender, the one subject about this that always gets people who know nothing about the broader trans issues on our side. The same people who get incensed over men in women's sports, don't care that male serial rapists are raping female prisoners right now because of anti-woman legislation. And they're not going to care after sports and only sports are restored. Sports are our Ace and she's stealing it on her way out the door.
Ok well first of all, this is not going to pass so don't get too worried.
Second of all, this is a terrifying position that you're taking. You're saying that we need to let young women get passed over for scholarships and medals. Sacrifice them on the alter of pragmatism in order to buy a little bit of public opinion. Yeah, I hate it.
Third, this bill will do nothing to prevent Fallon Fox, Rachel McKinnon, or any other professional athlete from competing in women's competitions. Title 9 only applies to sports that are run by educational institutions. So rest easy, professional female athletes will still be out there getting trounced by men for your GC marketing needs!
What a cynical take. This is not about marketing. This is about women's lives. Do you even know the other Title IX rollbacks that are being ignored by focusing only sports, which again, are the most visible and persuasive argument we have for retaining and restoring the sex based rights that keep women and girls in this country rely upon for safety, dignity and equity.
You're advocating not codifying into law one of the principle beliefs of gender critical feminism because it "[takes] away our most visible, most persuasive argument".
In other words, for the sake of a esoteric "argument", you'd rather NOT define women's sports as sex-based. It's just a weird take, is all I'm saying.
Ask yourself this: why is she not entering a bill to restore all Title IX protections and, instead, isolating sports?
I didn't criticize the bill.
You can criticize a person without condemning everything they've ever done, you know?
I love tulsi. She has serious integrity and stands up against the US war machine. I met her in person even. Energetically she felt a bit shut off. But most politicians do, I find. She grew up in a cult-like thing and is still affiliated with it. But I havenāt seen this effect her politics.
I love Tulsi too! She largely gets shat on by the left, which I really donāt understand given her policy stances. I guess all it takes is to be anti-war for both sides to hate you and call you a spy. š¤·āāļø
She got shat on by the left because she refused to worship the Clintons and she knew that trying to force a Hillary coronation in 2016 would blow up in the Democrats faces
She's a homophobe.
I believe her father raised her with some homophobic beliefs. She says that sheās since changed the way she thinks about a lot of things. She also has a 100% record for pro-LGB legislation in Congress. If sheās homophobic, itās certainly not showing.
Funny how she sounds exactly like any average politician when she talks about how her views have changed...
"That caused me to really deeply reflect and be introspective on the values and beliefs that I had grown up with what I was experiencing there," she said. "And then coming back and eventually running for office again. ... So it was a process that I went through that changed my views in many ways and in many big ways to the views that I hold today." (emphasis added) source
Yeah... I just don't find that very convincing on a personal level. Tulsi Gabbard strikes me as an opportunist above all. She'll go whichever way the wind is blowing.
If she sounds like any other average politician, why should you feel like you should trust her any less?
I saw nothing wrong with the quote you posted. If we don't believe that people can change, that they can reflect on their beliefs with introspection and realize they were wrong, then... what are we even doing here? Are we just shouting into the void?
As I said before, her record speaks for itself. That's convincing enough for me.
I believe people can change, but I don't simply believe every single person who says they have changed. I must be convinced of her sincerity... which is really a tall order for any politician, isn't it?
I agree with that. I dislike politicians in general, but I happen to like what I see with this one. I hope she doesn't end up disappointing me like many others, and I hope she's able to convince you someday!
She's a DINO. But, I think she's right on this issue. It's just for show, though, nothing will happen. This issue is going to he decided in the courts. Dems raise too much money from TRAs to piss them off by bringing this for a vote in the House.
Tulsi Gabbard is a backstabbing piece of shit who read a smear piece about Kamala Harris on the debate stage which she couldn't counter in a debate format. She was gunning for her because she was the other "pretty young non-white woman" running.
She's like the Ted Cruz of the left. Annoyingly correct on some things but otherwise an enormous pain in the ass.
Whether what Tulsi said on stage was true or not, what youāve just said is pretty sexist. It sounds like youāre saying Tulsi felt threatened by Kamalaās youth and beauty, and thatās the only reason why she said what she said. Thatās incredibly insulting.
That is not at all what she said. Read up on Tulsi's checkered history. She's a Russian plant, most likely. And definitely not actually a Democrat. She should not be trusted.
I have read up on Tulsi and sheās certainly not āmost likelyā a Russian plant. Why, because she chose Bernie over Hillary in 2016?
And that is exactly what she said. āShe was gunning for her because she was the other "pretty young non-white woman" running.ā How else are we supposed to interpret that?
Google "tulsi gabbard russian connection" and plenty of mainstream articles come up. HRC was talking about it in fall of 2019. Tulsi is awful.
I read many of those articles when they came out and saw no evidence that they were anything more than smear campaigns. Thank you for bringing this up actually, because I've been meaning to make this comparison. I think the mainstream liberal media's treatment of Tulsi is very similar to how they treat people who are critical of the trans movement.
It's either negative or they blacklist you entirely. This is why Tulsi appears so often on typically conservative media formats, because the liberal mainstream media doesn't want her. But you would be hard-pressed to find anything conservative about her stances. Just like Abigail Shrier had to go on Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson to get the news out about her book on ROGD.
I think if there were even a smidgen of truth about this Tulsi and Russia stuff, she would already be behind bars for treason. I mean, why wouldn't she be, if there's so much hard evidence of it floating around out there, and there are so many people gunning for her?
One of the articles actually said that Tulsi's name popped up "quite a few" times on some Russian media, somehow suggesting that that makes her a possible Russian agent. Are we to believe that no other Democratic candidates' names appeared at all in that media? They were covering an important American election - of course their names appeared! And how much is quite a few? More or less than her fellow candidates? We don't know, because no one bothered to cite that data.
Tulsi received delegates from Samoa and was on track to appear on the debate stage in March, but then the DNC conveniently changed the rules to qualify for the debate, and Tulsi was unfairly kept from being heard at all. The DNC dislikes Tulsi because she "turned her back on them" in order to support Bernie over Hillary in 2016, and the mainstream liberal media dislikes her because she doesn't strictly follow party lines.
And we all know that the mainstream media is owned by huge corporations who rely on easy to control, status quo politicians to keep their coffers full.
Like Trump and his minions have been tried for treason? The fact is we have a Russian asset in the White House. Bernie Sanders' campaigns in 2016 and 2020 were convenient targets for Russian disinformation and election interference in the United States. No one is going to jail for their involvement, but there are a lot of people involved nevertheless, on both sides of the aisle. Tulsi Gabbard's messaging has conveniently aligned with Russian efforts-- I don't know if that means she was actually in bed with them or not, but she certainly hasn't earned my trust in light of these facts.
No, what I'm saying is that Tulsi operated that way as a politician.
The people supporting her were almost entirely white men. They were supporting her because she was young, attractive, and exotic. Kamala Harris was all those things, plus experienced and well known. So she did the politically savvy but totally shitty thing and gunned her.
Facts describing somebody catering to and manipulating a sexist electorate are not themselves sexist.
Thatās still not a fair thing to say about Tulsi. Your political opinions aside, a lot of people liked Tulsi because of her policy stances, not because sheās young and pretty. You may disagree with her positions, and thatās fair, but I supported Tulsi, and I know other people who did too (men included), and to reduce our support down to her attractiveness to men is insulting. And yes, sexist.
Thank you! I agree. It reminds me of the sexist "bernie bro" narrative that was so prevalent during the democratic primary. Calling Sanders supporters "Bernie Bros" erased all the women who passionately supported his campaign.
The women who supported Bernie Sanders were largely deceived by his propaganda or privileged enough in life to not have experienced why his policy ideas were fundamentally sexist in their prioritization of white men.
Oh, holy shit I didn't realize I was dealing with the authority on Sanders supporting women's experiences and beliefs! It's amazing that you've managed to collectively know what's going on with all these women who you seem to have such little regard for. But hey, what do I know? I'm just one of those dumb, privileged women who wanted to prioritize the collective good of the working class.
You could always prove me wrong, instead of getting mad that I observed something to you out loud in a general context.
I've talked to a whole bunch of Sanders supporters, and I was "there" from the start of his first campaign. I know how the messaging evolved, I wrote a blog post about his propaganda network and experiencing it first hand, how it warped people's perceptions of reality. Literally all of the women I talked to who supported Sanders were either 1) deceived by his propaganda, 2), enormously privileged (like holy fuck I have no capacity to imagine being so privileged in life) or 3) some combination of 1, and 2.
Bring it on: what's it like to be a non-privileged, non-deceived woman who supported Bernie Sanders? What were the things he talked about that spoke to you, what were the feminist positions that he held that were better than all the other candidates?
There's a big part of me that wants to say no to telling you my experiences, because I don't trust that you're coming into this discussion in good faith. But if you are, or if someone else is reading this and is interested:
And I believe that the politician that most closely aligned with my positions was Bernie Sanders. If you think there was someone better, I would legitimately be curious to know who they are and why they are better on those issues.
Two quick follow-up points so I don't overdo it on edits to that comment.
The first, is I imagine there's a question out there lingering of "with M4A, wouldn't it be better if women were getting shitty healthcare for free than what we have now"? and the answer, I believe, is no, because currently, in the patriarchy we live in, with employer-funded healthcare (ick) still more common, men with better-paying, better-benefited jobs are currently paying for healthcare, or women are able to get it through Obamacare subsidies and efforts if they can't get it directly on their own. If we're all paying into the same system, we're still living in a patriarchy but we have to pay more for worse care.
Regarding aligning with Sanders, I really thought for a while I just hated him because of how he did Hillary Clinton dirty and how much of assholes his followers were, but in early 2020 I took a political affiliation quiz from a major news source and Bernie Sanders was dead last for me compared to all other politicians running, no matter how often I took the quiz and changed my answers. Yang was way ahead of him, as were all the other candidates I openly supported. When I reviewed the questions where we differed, my positions were always more progressive than his. I got 7/20 in common with him, and way higher in common with most other candidates. He isn't as progressive as he appears to be. He only is connoted as a liberal/progressive/socialist because he labels himself that way and he talks the old school Lefty/Communist party line. But, Lefties/Communist have long been a total bro-y culture and they haven't done a great job lifting most women out of poverty or sexism. (Maybe a better job than overt patriarchal capitalism does, but still not a great job at it. Which is why I liked Warren for the reasons you liked Sanders - she had a "lets' fix capitalism so it's not patriarchal" approach instead of stealing from a time that wasn't exactly feminist for women). Warren had a whole philosophy in this regard that actually fit every principle above.
I personally supported Kamala Harris for a variety of other reasons, also Klobuchar for other reasons, but me mentioning Warren is to point out the infinitely better option for your political belief system and leanings.
Every single woman who ran except for Tulsi Gabbard was infinitely better than Bernie Sanders. His strategy was entirely backward-looking, aiming at the mythical days of the White Working Class (Male) being the only one politicians cared about. Pete Buttigieg was better than Bernie in terms of framing the problem factually, and so was Joe Biden. Bernie's massive failing isn't one of rhetoric; we all agree with the gloss of what he's saying. The problem is the analysis of Bernie's policies makes him a shitty, racist, sexist politician whose ideas do nothing more than perpetuate existing inequalities in society by doing the things that help the already-privileged. (Elsewhere on here you can find discussions of exactly how "free college" does this; criticisms of that fact are why he backed off of that winning line from 2016 when he picked up all the naive young adults living with the heavy burden of college debt and still not yet burdened with the prospects of getting their children a good enough education to get them into college). The reason why people fell for Bernie's rhetoric (other than it sounding nice) is because any analysis or critique of his positions was snuffed out and shouted down. I know, because I tried to participate in it. This list isn't even the start of it. Almost all of Bernie's positions are garbage if you scratch the surface. (Guns, toxic waste, racial issues, sexism - in a speech he gave in early 2020 he literally left out "women" from his list of oppressed people and said "mourning wives" referring to soldiers who had died in combat. .Like for fuck's sake, spit in the face of women who fought and died in combat a little harder, you old outdated ass).
I really dislike Bernie Sanders as a politician. I think he's fine as a person who can move the Overton Window during a campaign, but he's bullshit as a candidate because his policies are actually a really bad idea.
Edit to add that I can't believe I forgot Cory Booker and Julian Castro. Both are men who shone early in the primary for me as men who recognized the role of sexism and misogyny in holding society back. Tom Steyer, too, actually. Literally, Bernie was my second-to-last choice, only ahead of Tulsi Fucking Gabbard.
Unions: Most unions were formed and grew strong before women entered the workforce en masse. Since the time that women were began to commonly work outside the home, there hasn't been a strong union movement. Which has resulted in modern industries where women make up the majority not being unionized. In my opinion, the solution to women not being in unions isn't to get rid of unions. It's to form unions in the industries where women are working.
Medicare for All: It's funny that you call this policy a pipe dream but then say that your preferred solution is to federally mandate private hospitals and insurance companies to prioritize women's health. I fully support them doing that, but there's NO WAY it's more likely to happen that a Medicare for All plan. Socialized medicine is the norm in most developed countries. The only thing preventing it from being the standard in the USA are pharmaceutical and healthcare lobbyists.
Climate Change: I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but unless green energy initiatives are taking away women's jobs and giving them to men instead I don't really see what your point is. Are you saying we shouldn't invest in green energy because it's not specifically employing women? Well neither is fracking or oil drilling, for the most part.
Wealth Accumulation: I agree and I actually think on this issue Warren was stronger on this issue in some ways. You're right to say that Sanders was a good mouthpiece for the position, but Warren's policies may have been stronger.
99%: Ok?
War: I agree. As soon as I find a socialist woman who is going to fight as passionately for the working class as Bernie does I will be supporting her. I'm eyeing up Nina Turner, AOC, and Briahna Joy Gray at the moment.
You say that every woman who ran (except Tulsi) was better than Sanders, but are you going by your own metrics or mine? If that's what you think, fine. But I've told you my positions and you haven't remotely convinced me that any politician better represented them than Bernie did.
Your description of Sanders' supporters seems to come from such an egotistical place. You act like his supporters are such morons and that you're capable of critical analysis and "scratching the surface" to see what others can't. It comes across like you don't think I - or other women who support Sanders - have done that, and it's presumptuous.
Unions: Most unions were formed and grew strong before women entered the workforce en masse. Since the time that women were began to commonly work outside the home, there hasn't been a strong union movement. Which has resulted in modern industries where women make up the majority not being unionized. In my opinion, the solution to women not being in unions isn't to get rid of unions. It's to form unions in the industries where women are working.
You have been taught a sexist, patriarchal history of labor. This does NOT reflect historic labor organizing in any way, shape or form. The reason why we have male-dominated unions at present is because my point is a legitimate one. There is a problem with unions being used as ways for men to dominate in the labor force.
Medicare for All: It's funny that you call this policy a pipe dream but then say that your preferred solution is to federally mandate private hospitals and insurance companies to prioritize women's health. I fully support them doing that, but there's NO WAY it's more likely to happen that a Medicare for All plan. Socialized medicine is the norm in most developed countries. The only thing preventing it from being the standard in the USA are pharmaceutical and healthcare lobbyists.
Most medical research is done with government funding. I'm not going to go into depth to correct you on this because my position is sound and accurate. M4A is not a path to erasing sexism in medicine, I follow a lot of UK women with health problems (I'm an onlooker to "disability Twitter" and follow a lot of YouTube disability accounts), and the UK health system, which has been socialized for a long time, still discriminates against women like this. Sweeping that context under the rug doesn't actually solve a damn thing.
Climate Change: I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but unless green energy initiatives are taking away women's jobs and giving them to men instead I don't really see what your point is. Are you saying we shouldn't invest in green energy because it's not specifically employing women? Well neither is fracking or oil drilling, for the most part.
What I'm saying is that if you proceed with the generic narrative that "green energy jobs can help the working class" without specifically incorporating feminism into it, what you will do is that you will reinforce the patriarchy and therefore reinforce social inequality for generations to come. My great-uncles participate in the Federal Jobs program during the Great Depression and it did exactly what your idea would do if you just continue down the path of pretending that "help the working class" doesn't mean "reinforce the patriarchy".
Wealth Accumulation: I agree and I actually think on this issue Warren was stronger on this issue in some ways. You're right to say that Sanders was a good mouthpiece for the position, but Warren's policies may have been stronger.
They were better, and because her policies are reflect the true nature of wealth and income inequality in the country, Bernie's were not good for his stated goals. Like I said, his policies are a Trojan Horse for continued inequality.
99%: Ok?
I resent how anemic feminism is in broader society. It takes it a lot more work than it should otherwise to convince you that the patriarchy is the big problem, not "rich people".
War: I agree. As soon as I find a socialist woman who is going to fight as passionately for the working class as Bernie does I will be supporting her. I'm eyeing up Nina Turner, AOC, and Briahna Joy Gray at the moment.
PLEASE LISTEN to me, and please think about all this in the context of your life, of history, etc. Read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez. Take a deep dive into women's history, etc. There is this concept called the "Default Male", and you have fallen prey to it. You think that there is this idea of "helping the working class". You think that you can just plow ahead with the ideas you have been fed your whole life and equality will result. This is not true. It's not true because the lie is that there is no "working class". There are men who are working class and all the stuff you've heard is about them. And then there is an underclass to that, and it's called "women". And women do the vast majority of unpaid, underpaid, and unrecognized labor in the world. Women subsidize the GDP. Women subsidize men. Women subsidize the entire goddamned planet. And you cannot elevate the world's poor or working class unless you elevate women. End of story.
You say that every woman who ran (except Tulsi) was better than Sanders, but are you going by your own metrics or mine?
See above. You erroneously believe that there is a generic human that whose life is improved by Sanders' policies. This is false. There are men and there are women. The world is held back by holding women back. Sanders' policies help men but not women. So you either believe in continuing the patriarchy, inequality, and Sanders, or you don't. You can't separate these out.
But I've told you my positions and you haven't remotely convinced me that any politician better represented them than Bernie did.
What you haven't done is prove that Sanders' policies actually bring about anything you claim to believe in, at any point in history. You have not provided any awareness of feminist analysis of socialism or Sanders. So you're either not a feminist, or you don't understand the implications of Bernie Sanders' policies, or you're withholding the evidence that will expose his policies as actually doing a good job for what I already outlined as problematic.
It comes across like you don't think I - or other women who support Sanders - have done that, and it's presumptuous.
Welp, I asked, and you had nothing. You did not touch base with reality or facts to provide evidence that his policies would achieve the goals you laid out, you just resorted to mythical thinking about generic "working class voters". I continue to leave the floor open to you to prove otherwise, but in the meantime, you've just confirmed my statement. Frankly, I don't care if you find me arrogant. Instead of engaging in an ad hominem or a tone argument, maybe try bringing facts instead of rhetoric to the table?
The amount of unsubstantiated claims you're making would take far more time than I have to address.
As I initially suspected, you have not entered this discussion in good faith and given me the benefit of believing that I have a brain in my head and might know what the hell I'm talking about. You ask me to read Invisible Women and condescend to explain to me the concept of "default male". Well I have read it, and it's fucking insulting that you think I wouldn't know that society runs off the men-as-default concept. Every woman on this site knows that. Consciously or subconsciously, every woman on the planet knows that. You're begging me to listen to you, but you make it hard when you demonstrate your utter contempt for me and my knowledge and beliefs. I kind of get the impression that it's not just me who you do that to though, so I'm not taking it personally!
Went and reviewed the thread.
You: assertion that the Bernie Bro narrative was false and that it erased women who supported him.
Me: the women who did support him didn't realize they were supporting sexism (for two reasons given).
You: Get insulted, insult me.
Me: Well, my assertion was based on my well-founded experiences, would you like to clarify why I'm wrong (about women who were supporting him not realizing they were taken in by a fundamentally sexist set of ideas)?
You: Say you're going to assume bad faith about me while claiming I'm the one talking in bad faith, list out a bunch of things that are your political opinions.
Me: point-by-point analysis of why those positions aren't feminist.
You: respond by saying you don't care about each of those points not being feminist.
Me: explains, point by point, further, alluding to things you could research if you bothered.
You: get insulted and insulting again, writing me off as "bad faith".
You look at this entire exchange and you tell me if you think you actually did a good job proving that A) Bernie Sanders had feminist policies or B) that you weren't tricked into thinking they were actually good for women.
The amount of unsubstantiated claims you're making would take far more time than I have to address.
Excuse me, what have you substantiated? You're far too used to being privileged if you think that I left stuff any less substantiated than you did.
I mirror people's argument style, and if you found my take lacking, that's because you came with nothing, yourself.
As I initially suspected, you have not entered this discussion in good faith and given me the benefit of believing that I have a brain in my head and might know what the hell I'm talking about. You ask me to read Invisible Women and condescend to explain to me the concept of "default male". Well I have read it, and it's fucking insulting that you think I wouldn't know that society runs off the men-as-default concept. Every woman on this site knows that. Consciously or subconsciously, every woman on the planet knows that. You're begging me to listen to you, but you make it hard when you demonstrate your utter contempt for me and my knowledge and beliefs. I kind of get the impression that it's not just me who you do that to though, so I'm not taking it personally!
Ah yes, you and your invisible army all know I'm a terrible person, so you're going to ignore all feedback, disregard everything I said, and carry on perpetuating the patriarchy. I'm accustomed to this approach, and honestly, it usually comes from men on reddit, not feminists on ovarit.
Your political opinions aside, a lot of people liked Tulsi because of her policy stances, not because sheās young and pretty.
Quantifiably highly unlikely.
You may disagree with her positions
Her positions are all over the place. Her overriding principle seems to be her own political attainment and anything that can be done to accomplish that. I already compared her to Ted Cruz; I stand by that.
but I supported Tulsi, and I know other people who did too (men included), and to reduce our support down to her attractiveness to men is insulting.
Just because you liked Tulsi doesn't mean you weren't had, and it also doesn't mean that the vast majority of the vast majority of her supporters (who were white men) actually liked her for her policy positions. This isn't in alignment with basic human psychology.
And no, me describing sexist belief systems on the part of a bunch of her supporters, once more, and forever, does not make me or my statement sexist.
Quantifiably highly unlikely.>
What is? That a lot of people who supported Tulsi liked her stances? That seems unlikely to you? What a strange argument to make.
Her positions are all over the place. Her overriding principle seems to be her own political attainment and anything that can be done to accomplish that. I already compared her to Ted Cruz; I stand by that.>
And what positions would those be? You haven't referenced anything specific here, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that she's just trying to further her own political attainment.
Just because you liked Tulsi doesn't mean you weren't had, and it also doesn't mean that the vast majority of the vast majority of her supporters (who were white men) actually liked her for her policy positions. This isn't in alignment with basic human psychology.>
Wow. And just because you don't like Tulsi doesn't mean you weren't had.
This is the exact holier-than-thou attitude that is starting to bug a whole lot of people about the left. It's the attitude that whoever disagrees with me must either be evil, not very bright, or were somehow tricked by more powerful people. You haven't even given any specific reasons as to why you don't like her. Because she took Kamala out of the running? The mainstream media disliked her for the same reasons, and because she supported Bernie over Hillary, and she was then quickly smeared as a Russian asset. Where is the evidence for that?
Anyone who doesn't closely tow the party lines is quickly tossed aside as an enemy. Where is the room for nuance? I don't give a flying shit who else supported her, or for what reasons. I supported her because she's anti-war, she's pro-LGB despite a homophobic upbringing, she's pro-choice, she has the ovaries to not always strictly follow party lines, and a lot more that I agree with, and now this bill she's proposing makes me love her even more.
People can actually have different opinions than you, and can actually have formed those opinions by looking into the topic quite a bit.
And no, me describing sexist belief systems on the part of a bunch of her supporters, once more, and forever, does not make me or my statement sexist.>
Your original statement about Tulsi gunning for Kamala because she's also young and attractive had no nuance whatsoever and was absolutely sexist. See? I can make absolute statements too! You essentially accused Tulsi of starting a catfight. Now you're backtracking and trying to claim that you're just describing what her supporters were thinking. Right. And you're the authority on her supporters because...?
Backstabbing? Iām pretty sure in a primary theyāre supposed to be running against each other. They were in a debate, which is this thing where theyāre supposed to challenge each other and disagree. How is calling out an opponent for their past political actions backstabbing?
It's called firehosing. She didn't present information that could be argued with, she gave a propaganda dump out to the public. It was dirty, it was Trumpian. It violated the communal support all other women running gave each other.
Tulsi Gabbard is a piece of shit and women need higher solidarity standards than this or we'll never get our necks out from under the boot of the patriarchy.
She's a DINO (like MANY politicians here in super Blue Hawaii) and voted "present" during Trump's impeachment hearing which shocked many of her supporters here who never really paid much attention to her prior.
She also grew up in a religious cult and was openly anti LGB early in her career.
I generally don't support Tulsi and will likely not vote for her again if she appears on my ballot, but this at least is awesome and I'm really happy to see it come from her.
So you're cool with the rest of Title IX being destroyed as long as we get to keep sports as a consolation prize?
No. Honestly I didn't read the bill, as I assumed many others here didn't either and just assumed it was a good thing for us based on the title.
Thank you for pointing this out. I will read up more on this.
Please do read up on it, because the person who wrote that comment seems weirdly hell-bent on hating this bill. It's about two paragraphs long and would be a huge win for women.
I really don't understand how you think this bill is doing that. It literally just says that for the purposes of Title 9 compliance, if an activity is said to be intended for women and girls they will determine eligibility based on sex. That's it. It doesn't destroy Title 9.
Sports is our leverage with the general public. It is the most visible example of the discrepances between men and women and our most useful example to draw upon in order to keep ALL legal distinctions of sex and gender. Without it, we lose our strongest, most persuasive argument that doesn't rely upon the audience giving a shit about violence against women.
I agree that sports are a clear and useful example of why we need to have distinctions between men and women.
But you still didn't answer how you think this bill destroys Title 9. Are you saying you want to allow TIMs in women's sports in order to show the public how bad it is? Because I don't think it's ok to sacrifice the careers and safely of today's young women in order to gain public leverage.
That's not what I said. I asked if you were okay with the destruction of Title IX, as long as women get to keep sports. Because that's where this goes. If you peice meal out our rights, we lose them. Especially when we put them up on the auction block starting with our most persuasive example. You'll get an AGP as a gynecologist, women will continue being raped in prison by male sexual sadists, women in homeless shelters will continue not bathing because TIMs are in there leering at them and jerking off, your daughter's Girl Scout leader will be a TIM, there will be no more sexual discrimination law suits, data on sexual assault, femicide, women's health, domestic violence, equal pay etc will all become completely useless, but hey we'll have the WNBA.
By your logic we might as well not have Title 9, because it doesn't address any issues beyond athletics. "If we help women win equality in athletics, people won't case about domestic violence anymore!"
No, that is not my logic at all. We need all of Title IX restored. We need the Equality Act amended. And we need the ERA ratified.
Wow! Iād expect sheād be flamed by some Democrats for this! Good for her for standing up for women and girls though.
I know she won't, but it would be awesome if Kamala Harris did the same. People's heads would explode.
Glad to see Tulsi doing this. I dislike her for a lot of reasons, but I don't have to be a fangirl of hers to appreciate the legislative effort.
The Twitter backlash may have as much to do with dislike of her as dislike of anything that doesn't support TRAs.
Isn't she a big TRA though?
No idea. From what I saw of her in the primary, she does whatever she can to get attention (like most politicians, only with a bit more daring than average). She seems lately to be angling for a switch to some sort of Republican thing... a position on Fox News? Dunno, don't care, I'll take whatever we can get.
I'll thank her for this bill and write my representative ASAP! :)
This is good news for American women! Get āer done, sisters. Maybe Canada will get a clue.
I stared at my ballot for a good long while. I wanted to write Tulsi in.
Tulsiās foreign policy was disqualifyingly loopy, but that doesnāt keep this bill from being good. I will get in touch with my representative about it. Doubt itāll get his support but itās worth getting the word out that people are thinking about this. Now that the election is over (and Joe Biden is wasting no time being disappointing in so many ways) my next effort is to talk to my Democratic representatives about gender.
After sharing the news with friends in real life, they were also relieved! I eagerly await more news on the bill.
This is awesomeā¼ļø I actually wrote in Tulsi for president this year (2020)! Although I donāt agree with her on everything, I really admired her willingness to think independently and not try to be desperately āwokeā like so many Democrats. It was a toss-up between her and Andrew Yang, but I wanted to vote for a woman again (I voted for Hillary in 2016).
The whole āreligious pathā thing doesnāt bother me because I was born in South Asia and that kind of thing is a dime-a-dozen there, though I donāt subscribe to any of those beliefs/movements. I also really admire how sheās an avid surfer and vegan, even though Iām neither, lol!
I just HOPE she doesnāt get bullied into backing down from this bill. Sadly, I can just see how the Democratic political machine will be out for her blood after this.
So, you guys want to keep the sports but lose all the single sex spaces? This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen. We don't need a new bill. We need to restore Title IX.
Those Twitter comments are making me lose faith in humanity. How can anyone in their right mind think it's fair for biological males to compete against women?
I'm having the exact response! I can't believe the pushback I'm seeing. I thought this would be the one issue that would make people open their eyes!
I think this is a good reminder of the minority of voices on Twitter do not represent majority of voices in the general population. Only about 1 in 5 adults use Twitter. YouTube is more like 80%. People who understand sports will not support this. If you ask any random person the question, "Can the majority of boys beat the majority of girls in a race?" they would say yes. Most of the entire world knows it's unfair for boys to compete against girls.
Also whenever you search videos on YouTube related to the topic, like on Fallon Fox fighting against women for example, nearly all the comments are against it.
Search "women's sports" and a ton of pro-sex segregation tweets will come up. This one the TRAs have already woked onto.
Because they hate women.
Astroturfing. 95% of Twitter is astro-turfing. Remember, just a few years ago, when they almost went under because no real human beings were using the platform?
Look like we gotta astroTERF š
^(sorry I couldnāt help myself)
They don't care about us. Women are seen as belonging to the sidelines of society. Our accomplishments don't matter. Our concerns are labeled whining. They just want us to shut up so they can do whatever they want regardless of how it hurts us.
mental delusions