patrick.net

Looks like the immense hirsute lesbians are going to have trouble recruiting new clam to snarf.

Man bad, Woman good! Munch, lick, slobber.

Women? LOL! These depictions appear to be nothing more than pseudo rebellious teens..

I'll care about Women's Reproductive Rights when Men have some, too.

Diva24 says

Women? LOL! These depictions appear to be nothing more than pseudo rebellious teens..

Good luck if you think it gets better with age ;)

I think reproduction should not be a right. In this world, child-birth is almost a source of pollution.

If they want to do something about "global warming" they should aim to lower birth rate.

I support women's power because I think everyone should strive to exceed himself or herself. But I oppose the idea of enforcing gender equality.

Peter P says

If they want to do something about "global warming" they should aim to lower birth rate.

Word.

I'd say it's the #1 Thing that can be done to protect the environment, improve living standards, raise purchasing power, reduce pollution, full employment, re-wild large spaces across the globe.

Any environmental plan that doesn't embrace population reduction as the #1 goal isn't serious, just like campaign against Polio or Smallpox that doesn't make vaccination #1 isn't serious.

Whoa, "reduction" is a strong word.

But family planning must be embraced.

Diva24 says

Women? LOL! These depictions appear to be nothing more than pseudo rebellious teens..

Don't discount the opinions of young adults simply because you do not agree with them.

Dan8267 says

Don't discount the opinions of young adults simply because you do not agree
with them.

Fair enough. How about because their opinions are informed by naivete, and they're already obviously blundering their way through life making the same mistakes as those before them, in the name of their own experiences somehow being unique or better or "real."

Seriously, I don't think a 14yo with a nose ring is enlightened enough to turn her metallic nose up on feminism entirely; I'd like to see if she can even get a popsicle without tearing her sign.

There's inherent tension between singles, DINKs and families with kids in society, tension so thick it's only a matter of time until a war breaks out.

Dan8267 says

What's "slut shame"? Do they mean having sex with men makes a woman a slut, but having sex with lesbians makes them pure and holy?

I'm not sure what this is all about, but it's just further proof that that 'post a picture of you holding up a sign' shit needs to go.

There is no shame in any form of consensual sex between/amongst natural person adults.

Automan Empire says

How about because their opinions are informed by naivete

The young can be naive, but the old can be cynical and foolish as well. Wisdom does not come from age alone. And youth has the enormous advantage of looking at things with fresh eyes.

I cannot accept that older people are generally wiser than young adults because of graphs like this...

Given the complete lack of any logical reason to make secular marriage only available to heterosexuals, it seems to me that the younger generations are wiser on some issues.

And that makes sense to me because human beings stubbornly hold on to prejudices, incorrect "facts", and misunderstandings. Over time, these things tend to be filtered from generation to generation. There is a huge advantage to being born later. You get to stand on taller shoulders.

That's not to say that no wisdom comes from life experience, but my observations have been that the baggage from older generations tends to outweigh what they've learned from experience. And I think the above graph illustrates that.

Automan Empire says

I don't think a 14yo with a nose ring is enlightened enough to turn her metallic nose up on feminism entirely

I don't think that's the case. We are all feminist by the original meaning of the term from the 1900s to 1920s progressive movement. No one believes that women should not have equal rights under the law including the right to vote, own property, sign contracts, own businesses, etc.

The backlash, and what that 14-year-old (I'm not sure that's really her age) is rejecting is the 1970s pseudo-feminism that turned the family court system and the media into weapons against men. I call it pseudo-feminism because any definition of feminism that would exclude Susan B. Anthony isn't real feminism. Unfortunately, the term has been hijacked since the 1970s.

It was a beautiful thing back in the early 20th century when it was based on civil rights rather than hate and power mongering.

As for the nose-ring girl's post, she has a damn good point. The place where 1920s feminism and progressivism needs to expand into is the Middle East. The pseudo-feminists in the popular press today don't seem to give a damn about that.

Dan8267 says

Given the complete lack of any logical reason to make secular marriage only available to heterosexuals, it seems to me that the younger generations are wiser on some issues.

One does NOT need a reason to like or dislike something. It is also not any indication of wisdom or there lack of.

Peter P says

There is no shame in any form of consensual sex between/amongst natural person adults.

The catholic church would like to have a word with you.

epitaph says

Peter P says

There is no shame in any form of consensual sex between/amongst natural person adults.

The catholic church would like to have a word with you.

I am too old a boy for their liking.

Peter P says

One does NOT need a reason to like or dislike something. It is also not any indication of wisdom or there lack of.

Disliking and trying to outlaw something are two entirely different things. Anyone who thinks that the state should have any say in the personal relationships of consenting adults is a fool. The denial of basic human rights to any group is a threat to anyone. That is true wisdom.

Dan8267 says

Disliking and trying to outlaw something are two entirely different things. Anyone who thinks that the state should have any say in the personal relationships of consenting adults is a fool. The denial of basic human rights to any group is a threat to anyone. That is true wisdom.

It is natural that some people want to outlaw things they dislike. They are not necessarily fools. I just disagree with them.

There is really no such thing as a basic human rights, or any intrinsic right in general. Rights are given or respected. Humanity is not very good at respecting that.

We can argue philosophy, but the practical upshot is that if you set up a society to oppress other people, you and your descendants will eventually get oppressed. Who's in power now isn't going to be in power tomorrow, and when someone of a different culture, religion, etc. is in control, do you want the state to be able to force your behavior to conform to his will?

I guess it's down to definitions. The young women pictured here seem to be against "strawman Feminism as parodied by Rush Limbaugh." It's as if feminists are defined as ONLY the most extreme bra-burners of the early 70s, akin to defining ALL war protesters as being exactly Jane Fonda.

I have some ~100 year old player piano rolls with lyrics mocking women for wanting the right to vote... but then all they want to do is go outside and smoke. There have been societal waves favoring and disfavoring feminism since. Flappers admired by some and scorned by others. Women like Rosie the Riveter edified during the war, then summarily fired en masse when the men came home from war. The oppressive 50s, where women were given benzodiazepenes like tic-tacs and "neurotic woman" as a stereotype assured a laugh.

Side note, look how lyrics of love songs before 1959 usually allude to marriage or seeing the preacher.

My own parents were a slightly progressive Mom and stuck in the 50s dad. As kids we used to play with the wig in my Mom's closet, only later to understand fully my dad DEMANDING she wear it after getting a bob cut because her hair fell over us babies when she leaned over us.

Nowadays, young women such as these seem a bit rudderless; expecting to receive all the benefits of patriarchy like opening doors even when it makes no sense, yet with them offering NONE of the postive and oppressive actions required of HER by said patriarchy, such as being submissive, letting the man of the house make all the important decisions, etc. Sometimes it seems the baby is thrown out first and they keep the bathwater- go figure.

OTOH I was discussing with my young colleague today: THIS is what you get for never letting your wife make a decision or handle a responsibility her whole adult life, then dying many years before her. It was in reference to a female customer who can't decide where to park a car in a small lot (how about one of the two open spaces???) and probably could barely blow her own nose three years after he passed. (long story)

Having grown up during the Womens' Lib era of the early 70s, women of my generation still seem to have conflicting ideas about gender roles etc. Seeing these young women claim they don't need feminism when they're barely out of middle school makes me wonder what their lives will become. I wish it made me optimistic, but it doesn't. Kind of like young gay people who take public affection for granted and know nothing about the stonewall riots.

I'm confused...What exactly is FEMINISM?

komputodo says

I'm confused...What exactly is FEMINISM?

Whatever the proponent or antagonist wants it to be.

It's either banning FTM Transgendered people from the Womyn's Michigan Music Festival, or getting equal pay for equal work (after also considering experience, diploma, degree and flexibility of workhours).

It's about saying that Shampoo Marketing is Rape Culture or that Rape Suspects should have less rights than a suspected Murderer or Robber or that it's "Victim Blaming" if you point out that almost all rape incidents at College involve binge drinking.

Asserting that strippers are oppressed by men (what about Chippendales, are they oppressed by Women?)

Basically, modern political feminism is about rape, rape rape rapey rapity rape rape.

Imagine if all the men were raptured, and the next day there was an ice storm in the Northeast. How long do you think it would be before the power came on in New England?

thunderlips11 says

Whatever the proponent or antagonist wants it to be.

I figured it is one of those words that modern enlightened people like to use but can't really define it.

Kinda like an "empowering tattoo"...how the hell a tattoo can be empowering is beyond me.

Tattoos are kind of like being bar coded for getting drunk, stoned, being antisocial and amoral, louche, ethically challenged and having terrible judgment for a significant period of life. I guess that is why they are great for employers as a screening device. They indicate a severe malfunction of the frontal lobes, either inherent or chemically self induced, or a locked in and fearless narcissistic tendency. Maybe temporary, like situational insanity, but maybe not.

It's scary because tattoos also shows how common badly functioning frontal lobes are, again either inherent or chemically induced.

One, eh, maybe just a passing thing. Two, Hmm. Three or more? Suicidal? And the REALLY ugly ones? That musta been a helluva bender.

Girls? Well, maybe they are advertising easy, Tramp Stamp.

Or is that a violation of "feminism?"

Second wives club fight lifetime alimony.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-07-13/business/fl-alimony-second-wives-20120712_1_lifetime-alimony-permanent-alimony-florida-alimony-reform

lostand confused says

Second wives club fight lifetime alimony.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-07-13/business/fl-alimony-second-wives-20120712_1_lifetime-alimony-permanent-alimony-florida-alimony-reform

Lifetime alimony is such a travesty. If the wife was so instrumental to the building of the husband's business, for example, I could see giving her half ownership, where she has to deal with the ups and downs like everyone else... But, guaranteeing her a fixed, lifetime payment based on her husband's ability to pay at a given point in time is absurd.

thunderlips11 says

komputodo says

I'm confused...What exactly is FEMINISM?

Whatever the proponent or antagonist wants it to be.

Precisely. The term meant something we all agree with back in the early and mid-20th century. Then it got hijacked as a marketing term for political and social agendas that have nothing to do with equality.

Assholes like Rush Limbaugh use it to paint women as Nazis. Assholes on the left use it to label all men who do not submit as misogynous, a term that now is used to silence opposing voices like the word terrorist, or in the 1950s, communist.

But the hijacking of the term ultimately does disservice to the movement. A lot of women are now rejecting the hijacked term because they have seen how poisonous the associated culture is. Gen X and the Millennials are products of broken homes. They don't want to embrace the get married and then get an ugly divorce lifestyle of the Boomers. Nor do the Millennials want to be ridiculed by some aging Boomer for wanting to settle down and start a family. This is what the backlash is about.

No one wants to return to the 1950s Leave It to Beaver household, as if that ever even existed. But it's a false dichotomy to suggest that it's either 1950s style domestic suppression or it's man vs. women death-match. The Boomers established the mindset that romantic relationships and marriage are zero-sum games. In order to win at the relationship, your partner must lose. The Boomers wretched two generations of relationships and finally the young adults are realizing that much of the 1960s and 1970s was bullshit, and Boomers tend to romanticize those decades as much as they demonize the 1950s.

In reality, the entire mid-20th century sucked. The 1950s was full of McCarthyism. The 1960s and 1970s were full of state violence, domestic unrest, and youth crime. And don't get me started on the god-awful fashion of those two decades.

Things only started to get better in the 1980s because of the computer, the 1990s because of the Internet, and the 21st century because of the expansion and refinement of these technologies that allowed building communities not limited by geography.

The whole 1960s/70s movements were largely ineffective. They didn't shorten the Vietnam War, or reduce the military industrial complex. They didn't reform capitalism or reduce homelessness. They failed to decrease racism -- really Gen X did more simply by not adopting racist ideas. They didn't solve any of the social problems introduced by the pill -- and yes, all great technologies are by their nature disruptive thus cause problems that need to be dealt with; even computers did so via the loss of jobs through automation.

I firmly believe that the generation to look at for an example of successful social progress is the progressive generation 1900-1920. Somehow, they got major reforms passed that still benefit us today. Unfortunately, now all the people responsible for that movement are dead, so it's too late to interview them and learn how it was done.

Just summarily execute the drone. The alimony ends and it was lifetime, win-win.