Trump, Scott Adams, Feminism

Peter

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?ref=oembed

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Valentine

appointing 1. a scion of a political dynasty and 2. an anti-vaxxer

#draintheswamp

Valentine

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?ref=oembed

literally what more could they have tho

we pretty much know him to be a factual rapist and he got elected anyway

Peter

*shrug*

Peter

https://xkcd.com/1539/

Valentine

it’s just weird to me that “DAMNING REVELATIONS” just like

don’t matter for him

they matter for everyone else

but not him somehow

like he creates a void around him where truth as a concept fails

Peter

he’s created a cult of personality

i was talking to a guy here who basically said the same thing, and my response was

‘well the nice thing about a cult of personality is that you don’t have to do much besides keep up the personality’

and that’s basically hit

it*

like

hitler was terrible as a military leader, not super great politician (i mean his FIRST revolution went terribly)

but he was a brilliant cult-of-personality figure head

Valentine

what’s also so strange about it is that he lacks so many of the characteristics “charismatic cult-of-personality” leaders usually have

e.g. eloquence, personal attractiveness or magnetism

Peter

did you see the thing about the talent stack?

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/137749295801/trumps-talent-stack-systems-versus-goals

Valentine

though i guess that last thing is just bc i’m personally repulsed by him

oh god scott adams

Peter

that’s an odd reaction

I like dilbert

Valentine

dilbert is an okay comic

idk if you know this but scott adams is a fucking nutcase

Peter

relatedly, I think the talent stack is a very good explanation for why America is still like the best place in the world, even though it is not the best at any particular thing

Valentine

also: “still like the best place in the world”

have you been to other places in the world

Peter

I mean, you’re studying here

also consider where I am typing from

Valentine

sure, it has the best universities

sweden’s still a better place to be from

Peter

eh

I think switzerland would’ve been a better country to go with

Valentine

or germany, or switzerland, or wherever else

Peter

sweden has some questionable policies that I’m not a huge fan of

Valentine

such as?

Peter

fairly heavy restrictions on speech and all that

Valentine

scott adams is also a really big trump supporter btw

Peter

I’ve heard that and I don’t think it’s true.

iirc he supported all of the candidates as a joke

which many many people did not quite get

Valentine

I think this is one of those cases where saying “Scott Adams isn’t a trump supporter” is like saying “Milo didn’t ~actually~ send death threats to people on twitter”

he’s a weird dude

adams I mean

Peter

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151552548531/why-i-endorse-gary-johnson-this-week

Peter

like

come on

this is so tongue in cheek

whatever, maybe he’s a trump supporter. Organic fallacy and all that.

Valentine

also like “the talent stack” doesn’t really seem like that revolutionary a concept to me

like

sure, having multiple skills often lets you do things better lol

Peter

that’s not what the talent stack is

the talent stick is having multiple skills in a mediocre way can combine to do something very specifically

adams applies it to himself very interestingly

“For example, I combined the following modest skills into a cartooning empire:

  1. Artistic talent (mediocre)
  2. Writing talent (simple and persuasive, but not Pulitzer-worthy)
  3. Business skills (Good, not amazing)
  4. Marketing and PR (good, not great)
  5. Social media skills (mediocre)
  6. Persuasion skills (above average, but not Trump-like)”

Valentine

either way adams has a ~reputation~ at this point for being Weird and Sort of Crazy

i read the article

Peter

I have a reputation for being Weird and Sort of Crazy

seems like a moo point

anyway, ye I think its like…probly correct

or a good explanation of why he’s managed to do well as a cult of personality figurehead

Valentine

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/fossils_are_bul.html

Peter

besides, i think its hard to say he doesn’t know how to get flashy media wins. Carrier and then Ford and both before he’s president. Like Star Slate Codex said, both of them are meaningless but he’s batman

Valentine

he thinks evolution is sketchy

https://web.archive.org/web/20070222235609/http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/sunday_blogging.html

he’s sort of a pseudo holocaust-denier

http://web.archive.org/web/20110402175229/http://tinysprout.tumblr.com/post/3713649989/scott-adams-dilbert-deleted-post

weird gender shit

Peter

I feel like you’re saying ‘look he has skepticism of things, this clearly means he’s

like

literally in the second paragraph of the fossil one

” If you are new to the Dilbert Blog, I remind you that I don’t believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism or invisible friends of any sort. I just think that evolution looks like a blend of science and bullshit, and have predicted for years that it would be revised in scientific terms in my lifetime.”

Valentine

…is that not a weird fucking opinion to hold?

Peter

no, its entirely correct

evolution is taken as fact but its ENTIRELY unscientific in explanation

like

Valentine

“I’d also like to know how the Holocaust death total of 6 million was determined. Is it the sort of number that is so well documented with actual names and perhaps a Nazi paper trail that no historian could doubt its accuracy, give or take ten thousand? Or is it like every other LRN (large round number) that someone pulled out of his ass and it became true by repetition? Does the figure include resistance fighters and civilians who died in the normal course of war, or just the Jews rounded up and killed systematically? No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened, but wouldn’t you like to know how the exact number was calculated, just for context? Without that context, I don’t know if I should lump the people who think the Holocaust might have been exaggerated for political purposes with the Holocaust deniers. If they are equally nuts, I’d like to know that. I want context.”

Peter

epigenetics right?

Valentine

like, reading that whole paragraph, fuck that

Peter

just throws lamarck back into the game

which is this, the second one?

Valentine

also: what the hell does “evolution is ENTIRELY unscientific” even mean

when we know genetic mutations exist

and observe species changing over time

and also know how gene heredity works

Peter

well, we don’t really observe species changing overtime, we see species that look similar and share DNA history

but as to the genetic mutations/gene heredity, its not conclusive

like, that’s why we still call it a theory, right?

don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying evolution doesn’t exist or anything

but he’s right – there’s a LOT missing

see: epigenetics, which completely blew open the field because nobody knew that was a thing until like 2010

(except larmarck, I guess)

Valentine

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133406477506/global-gender-war

scott adams is kind of a crank

Peter

also literally the paragraph BEFORE the paragraph you linked me about holocaust:

Valentine

by which i mean entirely a crank

Peter

“Before I give you some examples, allow me to stipulate the obvious. I know that if I researched these questions on my own, I could often find answers. And in some cases I have done that. My complaint is that these things should be included prominently in the news so the ignorant and lazy viewer such as me receives the right context without working too hard. Without proper context, the news is misleading at best, and intentionally biased at worst.”

it seems like you just don’t like skepticism of things that are “established fact”

Valentine

Does the news need to always contain the exact proof that there were six million jews killed in the holocaust for adams to admit that six million people were killed in the holocaust?

just please read the last thing i sent lol

Peter

global gender war?

ye im skimming these all as you send em along

Valentine

don’t skim

read

please

also, this:

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/19/scott_adams_sock_puppetry_scandal/

i don’t like self-righteous alt-right asshats who 1. question things to be edgy or prove their intelligence or 2. use blanket skepticism as an invitation to revisionist conspiracy theory

Peter

“(And watch the reaction to even bringing up the topic.)” “scott adams is kind of a crank” hey he had a point

Valentine

hooray, he’s self-aware enough to realize that he’s being super edgy

either way, the “global gender war” article is disgusting to me on a lot of levels

so i’m not a fan of the guy

and i don’t think he’s some great rationalist voice of reason crying in the wilderness

i think he really likes to think of himself as one lol

Peter

I really don’t think he’s wrong, but we can disagree on this. I’m amused about the sockpuppetry though, that’s just silly and dumb

Valentine

don’t think he’s wrong that…America is a “matriarchy”?

Peter

no that’s dumb, but I also think there’s a serious problem with all of us just being casually ok with killing bajillions of guys. Like the US is certainly less of a patriarchy than ISIS

which is the point he’s making

Valentine

i don’t think “being okay with killing bajillions of guys” is his point in that article at all lol

Peter

no, his point is that the US is less of a patriarchy than ISIS

or at least, of that part

Valentine

so much of this is just so sketchy

and really idk why you’re defending the guy – i feel like if you’d found all this stuff independently (rather than in the context of arguing about it with me) you wouldn’t be a fan either

not sketchy

let me amend that to downright gross

Peter

“But I’m glad we can all agree you’re a total tool.”

I loved the ending of the salon article

actually I loved the entire salon article

Valentine

also: i like that at the beginning of this discussion you assumed i had read a random article on scott adams’ blog lol

Peter

*shrug*

it’s come up on my reading list, it may have come up on yours

I don’t regularly read his blog but someone somewhere was upset that talent stack was being used to describe trump positively iirc

in any case, yea I don’t really think this as gross. Call it a vulgar critical analysis, but seriously how is this any different from a gendered analysis of war with less fancy words?

like isn’t this functionally fem theory applied to war, though admittedly the usual targets are not the expected ones

Valentine

“women as gatekeeper of sex and therefore matriarchs” is a pretty gross and also just outdated analysis to me – he’s relying on norms from like the 80s

all the shit about interruption is just dumb

Peter

the context he’s missing is that women also talk less statistically (I believe)

also, the 80s?

is that an 80s thing?

I thought the 80s was like…pre-womens-rigths

rights*

not literally, but you know

Valentine

and the fundamental assumption for the latter half is the age-old “men should be expected to be horny and violent if not satisfied with sex by women, and such is totally normal”

I’ve never been on a date where the girl wouldn’t have been offended if I hadn’t split the check lol

Peter

marital rape was still legal in the 80s iirc

also out of curiosity, did you still offer?

Valentine

also, again, for talent stack: i feel like the concept that “people’s mediocre skills can line up to allow them to accomplish specific things well” isn’t new either

i’m sure there’s a better term for this, mostly bc i don’t want to attribute adams with shit

Peter

xD

noted

well if you can find a better term im all ears

Valentine

i think i offered for [REDACTED]

Peter

I don’t think talent stack is PARTICULARLY good because it doesn’t get across the mediocrity part

but its what I had on hand

I’ll admit, I like paying for my dates

Valentine

yeah, cuz ur a misogynist

Peter

truuuuuu

but yea, no, [REDACTED] loved that shit. [REDACTED] hated it. *shrug*

Valentine

question though: why do you ~like~ paying for your dates

what’s the specific appeal there

Peter

I couldn’t tell you

Valentine

[REDACTED] would have murdered me if i tried shit like that lol

Peter

I’ve thought about it, and I straight up could not tell you

Valentine

i mean it probably is some subconscious “traditional household” gender dynamic thing

you tell me that i’m relatively conservative in my relationships despite being angrily leftist everywhere else

and i feel like upbringing/cultural background is def a part of that

Peter

I don’t know if its that

tbh i think its mostly cause I did so much with [REDACTED]

that it felt weird to switch

Valentine

why did you do it with [REDACTED]

Peter

*shrug* she liked it

Valentine

did you feel obligated to do it with [REDACTED] tho

Peter

I never felt obligated either way

Valentine

like if you had been like “let’s split the check” would she have been like “no”

Peter

lololol no of course not

I dunno, this is just anecdotes at this point

Valentine

i have a strong feeling that if you polled most women our age they would agree to splitting the check

Peter

its also I think a very specific part of the larger question, though perhaps a weird one to focus on

in all fairness, adams is not our age

Valentine

i think “the guy has to cover” is definitely a thing that has been dying

sure, but i think it’s a flaw in his argument not to recognize what things are like now right

Peter

if adams is dating girls our age, I’d agree with you on the crank thing

Valentine

or to extend that to old-fashioned “gatekeeper of sex” shit

Peter

also for what its worth, I don’t know about you but I also am generally not the one I would consider ‘gatekeeper of sex’ if I had to label that one way or another

whatever, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The larger question is whether ISIS is better for women than the US, which like…no

im interested in the sub idea of whether the US is better for women than men generally. I suspect *probly* on the margin, but I know you’d disagree

Valentine

i feel like pretending that all of the claims he’s making are somehow just irrelevant in the face of the overall point is weird

also like: no lol

Peter

i mean, I don’t think they’re irrelevant

I think you’re getting caught up in the wording instead of the points

Valentine

i don’t want to keep talking about scott adams tbh

i don’t think “they’re horny” is a great explanation for terrorism or violence

and an even worse justification

Peter

like, yea he’s very politically incorrect. I feel you’d have less a problem if it was phrased something like: “It is possible to analyze the deep political and violent divide between ISIS and the US through a theory of gender politics in which the US is more traditionally feminine and ISIS is more traditionally masculine, with the former displaying traits catering to female interests up to and including sexual freedom and the right to vote, while the latter displays intense sexual repression and toxic masculinity”

Valentine

i also just flat-out don’t get how you could decide that “on the margin the US is better for women than men”

Peter

I’m aware you don’t get that, but I think it’s probly true nonetheless. I don’t think that the problems unique to women are worse than the problems unique to men at this point in time, but you can speak about one of them and get support, while speaking about the other gets you bomb threats

Valentine

like i also disagree with the fundamental claim there that the US is a somehow female-dominated or female-oriented society right

i think that’s just an incredibly warped view

Peter

well, that’s what i said on the margin

Valentine

sure, but being a man lets you be a president/ceo/whatever the fuck you want

Peter

merkel would like to have a word with you

unless we’re talking strictly in the US

Valentine

is germany america now

also like: if you’re going to defend adams by saying that he’s writing from another time, then 1. his “insights” shouldn’t be applied to now and 2. he should recognize the structural disadvantages faced by women of earlier generations

Peter

if the implication is that being a man allows you to automatically become president, I sure would like to sign up for that

Valentine

the implication is that being a man is a functional prerequisite lol

you’re doing the “white privilege can’t exist bc there are poor white people” fallacy

like in the 50s it made sense for men to cover the check cuz they were also the only ones ~earning income~

Peter

no, i’m doing the ‘explain why there are so few female workplace deaths’ one. I never liked the argument that ‘ah look at all the men in high powered positions, but lets ignore all the men in ALL the blue collar ones’

Valentine

okay. how about all the male maids?

or male prostitutes?

or victims of sex trafficking

Peter

I’m not saying women have it better in terms of the actual problems. Like you can compare male workplace deaths/suicides to female sex trafficking all day and you’re not gonna get anywhere

Valentine

so then what even is your point

Peter

you can talk about the latter and be taken seriously, and not the former

because you get accused of something like ‘but privilege’

Valentine

“men have had it really hard for the last couple of years now!”

Peter

we’ve had this argument before

right like, I don’t think it was easier earlier

Valentine

all our arguments are cyclical

Peter

because war sucks, and coal mining sucks, and so on and so forth

but ok even if it was the last couple of years that the problems have stabilized, at least you’re admitted that they’ve stabilized

Valentine

and i honestly think it’s ridiculous to say that somebody talking about how workplace-related deaths for poor coal miners are bad would get shut down “bc privilege”

you can talk about suicides and workplace deaths and army fatalities and all the other problem affecting men all the fucking time

and those aren’t considered gendered issues, they’re just considered ~issues!~

to say that you “can’t talk about those things” feels to me like buying into the worst men’s right-type rightest conspiracy theorizing

like it completely misses the forest for the trees

Peter

no, I’m saying

why is it that female problems are uniquely gendered female, with aid specifically dedicated to women, but the same never happens the other way around? we are so quick to be like, “ah the reason something bad happens to women more often than men is because they are women” and never “the reason something bad happens to men more often than men is because they are men”

the problem is that if you ever try and say men have unique problems because of the way society treats men – akin to saying women have unique problems because of the ways society treats women – you get laughed at or shut down

Valentine

here’s the thing: most people would say that the fact that women’s issues are precisely that – “women’s issues” – is the ENTIRE PROBLEM

they weren’t taken seriously for so long

that now they can only be taken seriously under the umbrella of “women’s problems”

and, despite what you might think, that’s still a subcategory of issues that people tend to relegate and not think of as that important

Peter

I’d like to see some evidence of the last part. As to the former, well I was saying that in the current time the US is probly on the margin better for women

Valentine

and i think the idea that “the patriarchy forces unreasonable expectations on men too” is something all mainstream leftists straightforwardly believe

“toxic masculinity” is a whole Thing right?

Peter

toxic masculinity is a way to justify the duluth model

Valentine

for something like that i don’t think “evidence” ~can exist~

Peter

its never used as a way to actually *help* men

Valentine

…no?

not even a little bit

people use it all the time to talk about the unrealistic expectations forced on men (don’t be emotional, don’t cry, be aggressive, etc)

and why those things are horrible and need to be gotten rid of

I exclusively see the phrase used in a “fuck toxic masculinity/the patriarchy fucks us all” sense

Peter

I feel like I’ve only ever seen it in the ‘all guys are inherently imbued with toxic masculinity’ sense

Valentine

I feel like your/Adams whole thing misses the fact the current focus on women’s issues is an attempt to pay attention to things that were ignored for such a long period of time – to right inequities

Peter

as in, ‘all men are aggressive because society teaches them to be so, therefore duluth model’

Valentine

“toxic masculinity” isn’t “inherently imbued” – i think you’ve been misreading the arguments

it’s obviously a societal thing

Peter

i think politicians have been misreading the arguments quite strongly xD

Valentine

what does that mean?

Peter

like the duluth model

which we’ve talked about before

http://www.xojane.com/issues/domestic-violence-shelters-for-men

“. But the problem is we don’t live in a perfect world of unlimited resources, and money going towards this shelter means that money did not go towards other services for women, who make up about 80% of DV victims and survivors, according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. ”

like

come on

Valentine

I feel like the duluth model is more second wave feminism than third tbh

Peter

maybe i haven’t caught up yet. I don’t see many people campaigning to get rid of it though, so call me a skeptic

Valentine

anyway: i feel like if there was a hypothetical situation where 80% of men were the ones affected (or at least reporting) a given type of problem, you would be totally okay with disproportionately spending resources to help them (e.g. 80% of the resources) rather than enforcing equality in spending

Peter

me, or society?

Valentine

you

“In the face of cuts to transitional shelters for women that lead to crowding of emergency shelters, diverting resources to create underused facilities doesn’t seem like the best use of those resources.

Once again, it’s not that these five men don’t deserve gender competent services, because they absolutely do. Ideally, every survivor would have this access. But at the end of the day, this means that women who would have taken advantage of that transitional shelter didn’t receive services that they could have used. “

Peter

yea, fine. I’d be totally down for that, and be branded a misogynist as a result. We don’t *do* this for problems that are uniquely male. Homelessness, suicide rates, workplace accidents, whatever. There are no *male specific* resources. But female specific problems are branded specifically female and cannot be used by men, EVEN when men are affected (there aren’t any male DV shelters in the states as far as I know)

Valentine

See, if you flipped the genders and Adams had wrote this you’d be fine with it lol

“domestic violence” also has reason for being a Gendered Issue right

so like – if you’re okay with uniquely male things, why not uniquely female?

Peter

even though multiple studies have shown that aggression and abuse comes from both sides equally?

Valentine

is your issue just that “if uniquely female things exists then uniquely male should also exist”?

Peter

yea sure

like if the argument is there should be a skew of resources based on the amount happening, awesome

Valentine

would you actually accept there being way fewer male DV shelters

Peter

like, one would be nice right?

Valentine

there is one

and there might be some random woman against it, but she also headlines her shit as UNPOPULAR OPINION

she’s just being non-pc man

scott adams does it and earns your praise

Peter

yes, the tagline that generally means ‘popular opinion’

scott adams just says shit xD

he doesnt tag it

Valentine

“non-pc” also generally means “popular opinion” lol

yes he does

so self-consciously and obnoxiously

Peter

i dont think he said ‘this is a non-pc opinion’

i may have missed that

Valentine

remember the bit where he’s like (And just watch the reaction this will get!) or whatever in parenthesis

he does that in every article

Peter

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/first-of-its-kind-domestic-violence-shelter-for-all-male-victims-opens-in-arkansas/

hey there is one

Valentine

there’s one in the article you sent me!

the article is arguing for it to be closed!

Peter

o the xo jane one

i wonder if thats the same one

(it actually didnt occur to me that that was obviously referring to an existing one)

IT IS THE SAME ONE

ok cool

we got one

Valentine

incidentally, i’ve certainly read many contemporary “feminist”/progressive sources talking about female domestic violence against men and about how patriarchal standards prevent it from being taken seriously

Peter

we’re done folks

Valentine

e.g. about how for a long time women were constructed as basically “incapable of violence” and we know that not to be true

in a book written by a v stridently feminist female author

Peter

these are like…all just claims

Valentine

sure. so are all the things you’ve said

you’ve “claimed” some large social trend

Peter

why is that analysis any more true than the exact opposite (i.e. that we allow them to be more violent because matriarchal society)

[not that i believe that]

Valentine

bc empirical evidence?

Peter

[#notaracist]

Valentine

having lived in society, the matriarchal society take is bullshit lol

Peter

no of course it is, but like thats what that analysis is in a vacuum. Its not empiracally

empiracly backed

empiracally*

empirically

Valentine

the whole book was about violence in art and media going back several decades

so there’s lots of argumentative background to it

but also just like, it’s intuitively true right

this is the same reason we don’t conscript women, cuz we historically viewed them as weak and non-violent and in need of protection

and men who were the victims of domestic abuse were laughed off

one of the problems of the patriarchy is not recognizing that women can be evil and violent too

Peter

maybe this is another problem with ideology vs movement

because the movement does not ever recognize women can be evil and violent too

Valentine

i think that’s also false

in a lot of these cases i think it’s because you construct boogeymen out of “””feminists”””

and exclusively have inane shit cherry-picked for you as 100% of your sample size

THIS is why i don’t like kotaku in action

Peter

*shrug* ok, find some evidence and change my mind

Valentine

do I count?

Peter

no, you’re not a political movement

like give me examples of laws or demonstrations or something on a larger scale

Valentine

the “why toxic masculinity harms men” articles and all that get shared in waves by all the [REDACTED] leftists, will point them out to you next time they go around

Peter

please do

i’d be intrigued

Valentine

it’s definitely a Thing

also often gets mixed in with LGBT stuff

e.g. homophobic stereotypes

Peter

I mean, I know the concept

I just don’t think its ever applied that way, certainly not en masse even if a few people do here and there

like

as much as we’re like

Valentine

i think something like that is sort of a factor of “people thinking that other issues are worth addressing first”

Peter

‘ah men are not ALL aggressive, society just makes us think that of them’ we also turn around and say ‘men are ALL aggressive because society conditions them to do just that’

Valentine

the claim is instead “society puts pressure on men to be aggressive, so obviously some are”

“whereas those who don’t want to be often face pressures to act in that way”

Peter

ok, but the first part is used as justification to assume ALL are

Valentine

same for “expected to be unemotional” etc

Peter

again, duluth model is great example of this

title 9 too

Valentine

question: how widely implemented is the duluth model really?

…how does title 9 assume that all men are aggressive?

Peter

 untitled

Peter

lol missing section

kinda important

Valentine

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

like presumably title ix would force a school to have as big a male gymnastics/volleyball team as female right?

“Title IX compliance is assessed through a total program comparison. In other words, the entire men’s program is compared to the entire women’s program, not just one men’s team to the women’s team in the same sport. The broad comparative provision was intended to emphasize that Title IX does not require the creation of mirror image programs. Males and females can participate in different sports according to their respective interests and abilities. Thus, broad variations in the type and number of sports opportunities offered to each gender are permitted.”

Peter

why are you talking about the sports parts of title 9?

im talking about the sexual assault stuff

Valentine

and again, what is it about ~title ix specifically~ which is imbalanced by genders?

title ix could be INVOKED by one gender more

but have you considered that that might also have something to do with one set of people facing sexual assault more often

which would be occam’s razor here

Peter

hold on

Valentine

also yeah sorry but have to go lol

feeling v sleepy

Peter

and its not just frequency in which its invoked, I mean the way these things are adjucated

adjudicated*

but ye we can delve into that later

night

Valentine

on a quick note: given how often the story goes that “the alleged rapist WASN’T expelled”, I’m also wondering where you get your stance on unequal adjudication

but yeah later

night

Peter

also

like

its the FIRST one

the FIRST dv shelter

and immediately ‘this is a bad use of funds’

Valentine

also like it’s the FIRST time women’s issues are taken seriously, and immediately it’s like “men are oppressed and the US is a matriarchal society”

who even is this person lol

like I’m sure you only found this article bc it was posted to KiA right

also if you post this convo to blog should probably delete the bits where it’s like “I’m getting dinner” and all that

Peter

no i googled men’s domestic violence shelters and that was the first hit

how fucked up is that?

also justifying a bad thing with another bad thing is not a great argument

Valentine

What I’m saying is that it’s hard to hold one but not the other

As being problems I mean

Not a justification

Peter

I think both are problems right?

like, I don’t like feminism not because it purports to look for equality for women, but because I think its not actually looking for equality

Valentine

sure

to the first message, definitely not the second

Peter

ye

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s