Jump to content

naomi

Members
  • Content Count

    10,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

naomi last won the day on March 22 2014

naomi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

215 Excellent

About naomi

  • Rank
    FF Geek

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nor Cal

Recent Profile Visitors

26,614 profile views
  1. The period day thing is bizarre. At least when applied to the West. Some Marxist "equity" tunnel-visioned comrads came up with it and everyone else goes along, lending the perception that many more people are genuinely onboard than really are. I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of women when I say we'd rather not have an extra random day where periods are brought to mind.
  2. While there's truth to (historically) women seeing men as providers and themselves as providing a good home base in return, "mentality" means a default attitude and ethic. Tell this to Ayn Rand, myself, and thousands upon thousands of women who think what you're describing here basically = being lazy and demanding. I like the idea of a protector and provider mindset in the guy, but yet still watching out for each other. And as long as both can physically and mentally be industrious, whether it's for a wage or not, both should be.
  3. Sderk, based on what you quoted up there from that Twitter thread and your responses to it, I think you're completely misunderstanding the stance that person is taking. It actually amazes me how much it flew by you. But then, very motivated to respond here, I started logging in as "sderk" so I can't talk..too much.
  4. A gay person articulating on Twitter what's different about the gender movement. This is resonating with a lot of people. https://mobile.twitter.com/LaraAdamsMille1/status/1185196529495269376
  5. "Gabbard earns frequent mentions in Russian propaganda and media. She is a regular subject on RT, the news agency backed by the Kremlin." Regard as true for a moment: In contrast to the other candidates, Russian media and propaganda seems interested in Gabbard being successful. Regard as true for a moment: Russian powers hate Hilary Clinton. Russian powers were far more comfortable with the prospect of Trump being in office. So personally, I'm not going to choose to support a candidate based on how Russia feels about them, regardless. But what logic is there to the incentives for these warring interests? Russia wants the U.S. to have more of a non-interventionist stance because they want to be the primary force behind how things shape up on the globe? What else is there? I'm not interested in arguments about the veracity of the claims. Just what the alleged incentives are.
  6. This is why I said in my post: I think it comes the closest but is still different. It probably seemed subversive to the biggest critics, and out of the natural order to some, but not necessarily entirely unredeemable as a development in society.  It's that last part..it wasn't a subversive notion (to the people who found it subversive) to the same degree. I read a bit on anti-suffrage efforts and their rationale after posting and still have the same impression - it comes the closest out of the examples you mentioned, but when you break out the elements of tension, it was not as radical of an "ask" or assertion, and it didn't have the same seeming mental illness (and ignoring it out of compassion/political correctness) aura around it, and wasn't packaged within a larger and sweeping ideology, like everything that goes with intersectionality. To opponents of suffrage, it was going to impact and upset natural family dynamics, but not nuke them. This movement needs everyone to cease from holding to ideas like "natural" family dynamics in the first place, to be satisfied. Because that is an uncomfortable thought, and the world around needs to not at all reflect this uncomfortable thought. For people who think strong families are a huge key to the success we've had as a civil society, when there's deference or promotion (progressive and institutional) to the idea that it's immoral to think in terms of male strengths and female strengths and how they can combine for good, a gut based concern rises. If you think about it, it is a pretty Orwellian movement. What was once traditional bedrock should be thoughtcrime.
  7. naomi

    Columbus day

    I didn't know it until opening this thread a couple minutes ago. From an NPR interview: SIMON: What did it mean to many Italian Americans to have Columbus Day established as a federal holiday back in the 1930s? SCIORRA: One has to remember that when Italians arrive here in the late 1880s in mass - we're talking about 4 1/2 millions who come - Italian immigrants who come between 1880s and 1924 - they encounter America that is xenophobic, that is engaging in acts of violence against immigrants. One has to remember the lynching in New Orleans of 11 Italian Americans in 1891 so that Columbus becomes this figure that Italians latch on to as a way to get a foothold in this incredibly hostile environment that they find themselves in. SIMON: So what has the reaction been among many Italian American groups and Italian American families to the emphasis in recent years on seeing the racism and brutality and violence in Columbus' personal history? SCIORRA: There's an emotional bond to Columbus. I've read poetry which has - says, you know, when I look at the figure of Columbus on a statue, I don't see Columbus. I see my grandfather. I see the sort of worker's hands in his hands. I see the visage, his visage. And I see that of my grandfather. So there's a really emotional bond there. I should say that, you know, this is not an issue of Italian Americans against Native Americans or Native Americans against Italian Americans. It's not a versus - it's not a war that's going upon these two groups. And I think that's always important to keep in mind.
  8. naomi

    Debating a flat-earth moron

    A friend from my last workplace entertained the arguments, and it took me a couple minutes while listening to him to confirm he was actually serious. Christian thinking had nothing to do with it. I also watched about 45 minutes of a flat earther conference once, and again, no discernable religious faith based stuff. There was a spiritualist. My impression is those people tend to be a hodgepodge worldview wise and are attracted overall to currents out of the mainstream.
  9. This is a great question. I don't think those who resisted or were unhappy with these different developments neatly trend together. I'm sure there's lots of overlap, but if you were to look down through time and take in all the viewpoints and nuance, it probably becomes irrelevant to ask "how do we know when..?" since the "we" is so fluid. I think the politics of intersectionality (most visible with the introduce your pronouns crowd) comes across as nonsense and indicative of society losing some marbles to many people who are seeing it happen in passing. Out of these sociopolitical developments you're mentioning, maybe women voting comes the closest. I'd have to look into that and try to figure out the mentality on different sides there, and how unprecedented of a notion it was (there had been major rulers who were female, so everyday people had a reference point of women engaged in politics). I think it comes the closest but is still different. It probably seemed subversive to the biggest critics, and out of the natural order to some, but not necessarily entirely unredeemable as a development in society. And that's maybe because of the idea that the family structure is the foundation of civil society. Almost all signature progressive policies encourage subverting that. Arbitrarily invalidating sex and gender, with, as Paglia put it, the bueracratic machinery, (as well as just progressives) puts this trend in front of faces. In time, the families that do persist are not as strong as nature would intend, because the individuals comprising them are unmoored from the dynamics that make for strong families. The machinery, the idealogical statists, not the families, wind up having the most impactive hand in raising the new generations. And statists kind of love that idea. The ideal of strong families and true freedom, on the other hand, pair well together.
  10. Three minutes in - this androgyny fascinated, first wave feminist historian gives her historically based understanding on why we want to have discernment here...
  11. That is the most bizarre exchange of information I've ever seen. I think.. there are some people who are genuinely very uncomfortable in their bodies, and likely truly do have some endocrine/brain chemistry factors for it. They're very rare. But then there are people who are drawn this way out of fetishization and that's different. It's mental state and fetish foremost. And it's gotta suck for the former group.
  12. naomi

    So, my job, or lack thereof...

    That's what we're here for though
  13. No (and no pun intended), I can totally see how solid no's need to be solid no's in those scenerios. OR if you're literally a little flakey about it, you have to put the onus on yourself for any potential future regret, not the other person. It's just the whole nature of the exchange, or lack thereof. If you weren't clear, it's still something that was within your control, and you absented. I think a fair amount of guys actually do stop at the not-super-solid sounding aversion, but over time they'll want to figure out where the real boundaries are. The sad part of this story to me though, aside from what it may say about her character or ability to feed herself a narrative, is that I think she basically delivered on "hurt people hurt people." ETA: Inebriation is different. Personally I don't think those decisions should be made then, but that kind of wisdom is out the window in the moment. I wouldn't trust a guy who got drunk with me unless we knew each other really well already. But my bar is set high (not a bad thing) on things like that due to good people I've known.
  14. Yeah, her response seems full of words and phrases to signal to people who will feel a need to believe her. At most it seems she wasn't into the idea of anal sex, and she claims to have stated so more than once, but when she was a little toasted he went for it. She was still really into him though, for quite a while, but she was ultimately hurt by him just stopping the affair. In time, that experience, that it seems like she would have otherwise not zeroed in on, she chose to #metoo harness. Maybe she created a narrative she believes herself, or some part of her knows she just wants to hurt him. Or I'm wrong. But having read his statement, it definitely sounds like if they had wound up together, her complaint never would have been made. After they stopped seeing each other, it sounds like she held out hope for a couple years that they would rekindle. I'm thinking once she finally saw the writing on the wall, she decided to burn it all down. Or, I'm wrong. Definitely get those vibes though.
  15. The gal in question has released a response to his statement. Highly doubt I'll change my mind (Lauer's full statement seems pretty genuine) but I'll take a look at hers...
×