> At the risk of sounding callous, starting a family before you can afford it is living beyond your means.
I don't live in the US so I don't know if this applies to some contexts within the US, but in other contexts a family (partnership with one or more people and raising children) is sometimes a neccessity for survival: you share food and lodging and save money, a shared income, shared tasks and responsibilities and, in the absence of a retirement plan, your children will help you when you get old or sick. Raising children is a tough job so you had better start young, when you still have the energy to juggle the big amount of work that requires.
I would word it differently: "for women to use this in order to regain some sort of advantage" considering the fact that women generally are at a strong disadvantage in society (especially when it comes to personal safety and income)
I don't want to discuss how and if women or men are disadvantaged by the society, but don't you think that gaining an unfair advantage over someone that did nothing to cause you to have the disadvantage initially doesn't really solve the problem?
My issue with the previous comment was with the wording that made it seem that restraining orders are unfair in general. If we want to talk about generalities and how we percieve the situation then we can't escape discussing how and if women and men are advantaged in society, and that's why I brought it up. We can't generalize based solely on the case of the Google+ invite.
> over someone that did nothing to cause you to have the disadvantage initially
Disadvantages only exist in relation to others' advantages. Being in danger is a disadvantage, and threatening someone is an advantage. I understand that this is not just a question of gender, but that it's also related to the current conditions in the US that I only read about from afar (high gun posession and violence, relationship between police and citizens, mass incarceration and police brutality...) I don't know the situation, but saying women exploit restraining orders just smelled fishy.
My radio button setting was "disable" even after I visited the location history. I think enabling location access and enabling location history are two different things, in that you can enable the detection of your current location to have better instructions from the application, but at the same time disable history.
Having said that, I am still wondering why I had no location history even if the enable radio button was selected. Still, no harm no foul, I guess?
Another thing worth noting is that the dropdown shows only the last 30 days of your location history - does that mean Google shows only the last 30 days or that we get to see only the last 30 days?
It's not the last 30 days, it shows 30 days worth of data on the map at once. So, you can do 30 days, and then go on the calendar and select September 1st. It will then show 30 days worth of location history on the map, starting on September 1st. I think showing any more than a 30 day period would probably just end up being a tangled mess, honestly, which is probably why they did it that way.
If you want, you should also be able to download the entirety of your location history from Google Takeout. It comes in a JSON file, and has locations in Latitude, longitude, the accuracy, and what activities it thinks you are doing (e.g. still, in a car, walking, on a bike), and the confidences for that.
Different approaches to the question of "HOW to bring about change" (as opposed to just "WHAT change is needed") are the reason so many political tendencies exist. Your approach can be described as reformist, and it surely hasn't always proven to be the "right way to go" (other commenters have mentioned the civil rights movement). On the other hand, "hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it" is a strategy frequently adopted by anarchist, libertarian or autonomist trends that hope to create pockets of resistance outside the "system" and try to expand them to bring about change from the outside.
I doubt that there is only one "right way to go" that applies to any situation, but I think that any tactic that can bring about a powerful long-term mass movement is more likely to succeed: for example in the case of the Civil rights movement mentioned, civil disobedience was only one of the methods used, along with discussions, massive marches, boycotts, threatening escalation, and alliances with certain people within the system who have more access to power and who supported the movement.
Which brings me back to the OP's point: individualism vs. authority. Since I personally believe that building mass movements that support freedoms is the most effective way to protect them, individualism (as a method of organising) seems to be another obstacle to building a strong opposition to authority, and thus indirectly serving it.
It amazes me how so many commenters here can miss an essential point about hipsters and hipster-hate. Hipster-hate is more than bullying, it can be understood if we consider that socio-economic classes are at war with each other: in this understanding, hipsters are the ones that have crossed the trench lines. They're percieved as people who mostly come from a wealthy white background, from which they want to be independent, but which gives them a certain legacy and advantage over non-white poor people. This helps them colonize/gentrify poor neighborhoods, thus pushing the prices up and paving the way for the city to push it's poor further away. Not to mention the fact that they are easy targets from the traditional upper class who percieves them as "willfully bohemian". We have the same kind of hate here in France for our "bobos". Hipster hate has a material economic basis.
> The double standard of what human rights mean if you are a US citizen and if you aren't makes me physically ill.
I also think that is profoundly unjust, and unfortunately it is not simply a question of being a US citizen or not: US citizens who are arab or muslim are more likely to be suspected of acts that could be considered to lie within the vague legal category of Terrorism. So it seems that non-muslim and non-arab people (whether US citizens or european citizens or otherwise) are less likely to be subjected to exceptional treatment, to be detained without trial or be killed in extra-judicial assasinations etc. It seems the divide is more on a racial/ethnic line than a US-citizenship line.
They found a Saudi who was a U.S. Citizen (born in Louisiana), fighting in Afghanistan, and took him to Guantanamo. The Supreme Court ordered him released, and the government complied.
Some people are not considered "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". That is what I find unjust. I can accept focusing on "high-risk groups" (although one should question how this definition of a high-risk group is constructed), monitoring them, and trying them in court. What is unjust is punishing them without a fair trial.
"percentage of males in teaching professions, and/or daycare?"
I agree it isn't fair. But this can be seen as misogyny/sexism backfiring against men. One main reason why men are discriminated against in these professions is that for a long time many societies have considered that women should only care for children and domestic work. These societies have adapted to that, elevating gender roles and hierarchies, and making it hard for people to escape their grip. And although this has mainly been to the disadvantage of women, many men have also suffered from being limited to male jobs/roles etc.
Excuse my ignorance, just wondering: is it established that porn is sexist? Are they demeaning to the male actors in porn, too? Or is the underlying value that it is demeaning for a woman to have sex? It seems to me a universal judgement isn't easy to come by?
Yes. Mainstream porn is very sexist. Do you know what a woman is assumed to be? bisexual. Do you know what happens when you look up bisexual porn? You find a man. Think about that. Understand what that means and who the assumed audience is. This assumption permeates throughout the rest of the industry. (Hint: straight-male.)
It is, yes. The vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of porn panders to a specifically, typically male fantasy (and bravado) of sexual interaction.
No, it does not. The following makes no claims about male fantasy or porn; it is merely a means of explaining that you have made an incorrect inference.
Imagine if you will that, hypothetically, 10% of male fantasy is about humiliating women. Imagine also, hypothetically, that all porn is based on that 10%. In this way, you can see that it is possible for all porn to be about humiliating women, but that does not imply that the majority of male fantasy is about that.
Put another way, if all cows are black, it does not mean that everything black is a cow. If all porn is based on a male fantasy, it does not mean that all male fantasy is represented in porn.
That would seem like a way to escape the conclusion, but wouldn't it make most sense to talk about the porn that is consumed by most men? I'd assume at least 95% of men consume porn (random guess), so my conclusion would still be valid.
Most porn so strongly caters to male fantasy that some women turn to gay (male on male) porn and yaoi (a form of male on male gay erotic writing) to meet some of their needs. Porn intended for women is a budding industry. It has to be written and filmed differently. I have seen an interview with a woman director who talked about some of those differences. Most porn is strongly rooted in objectifying women in a way which denies their humanity -- in other words, denies that they have any needs of their own or are anything other than a vehicle for male satisfaction. It is a pretty demeaning stance.
Regardless, I doubt the fake porno was in any way intended respectfully. Sexuality is extremely personal and private. Attacking someone that way is generally a very ugly thing to do. Sexual assault is often included as a part of torture because you can cause enormous physical pain and long term psychological damage without leaving a mark on them.
"Most porn is strongly rooted in objectifying women in a way which denies their humanity"
Or maybe porn is simply about one, limited aspect of humanity? By chance (might have been YouTube's recommender algorithm) I watched this on Objectification recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUhW41Qpjg
I guess I can settle for "sexist porn is sexist", though - obviously there is a huge range of porn out there... Is a picture of a naked woman sexist, for example?
Let me restate that: I think most porn today is sexist, much of it in a manner which is demeaning to women. I also think it is basically irrelevant. Male or female, attacking someone sexually is generally one of the ugliest forms of attack known by humankind.
Generally speaking, across the globe, female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men. A stronger rebuttal to remarks which objectify a woman sexually is not to be all in a huff but to turn it around and talk about men like they are sex objects. I am a woman. I have done that. It is such a powerful thing to do that if I am not extremely careful, rather than teaching men they should not talk that way about women, it teaches them I am some crazily dangerous, disrespectful person whose presence should not be tolerated. Women put up with that every single day. It is such a strong part of global culture that I believe it is the real reason that "Silence of the lambs" creeps people out. I wrote a blog post on that some time ago. This may not be the time or place to go into it. I usually try to tread very lightly on such topics on HN.
Which is a longish way of saying that, globally, it is so common for women to be treated in a demeaning manner that many women view porn per se as demeaning to women. I do not. But I do think a great deal of porn is done in a fashion which is demeaning.
Hopefully that satisfies your side question in some meaningful manner, hopefully without getting me publically lynched for daring to say it.
"female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men."
I must say I have never noticed this, so I am not sure what to say. I can't really make sense of it either. My impression was sex exists to create babies, not to pleasure men. I don't say that to try to be funny, just to express that it seems a very long way from that to "female sexuality exits to pleasure men".
Or do you mean the use of women in advertising, their sexiness associated with chocolate or cars or whatever? I guess it could be interpreted like that, only I wouldn't have referred to a woman's presentation in a (supposedly) sexy way as her sexuality. With "female sexuality" I thought about what arouses women. Maybe I misunderstood.
My interpretation of women is advertising is simply that men desire women, not that women's purpose is to pleasure men. Actually, isn't it rather the other way round? You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men?
Edit: also, my apologies, I am getting tired and HN is probably not well suited to this kind of discussion. I am interested in it, though.
If you are truly interested in it... I'll just dump some things here. :)
"Female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men" is a true statement in general media.
So. [Most] Porn. Watch it. Who's orgasm is displayed? Who's orgasm is typically non-existent (to the point it is fetishized when it does occur?) Make a judgment. Why is this true? See my earlier post about "bisexual porn."
Ok. Advertising. "With 'female sexuality' I thought about what arouses women." Good. That's a part of what sexuality is but not what it is framed as in terms of its portrayal in media. "You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men?" I kinda hope you don't mean that. :) How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?' If you are thinking about answering that question... don't!
It would be pleasing to women if their needs (sexual needs in terms of porn, practical needs in terms of cars) were met in media. However, only the needs of men (getting women somehow in BOTH cases) are being portrayed. That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual.
This is an example of the objectification you see discussed here. Women are the object, men are the subject, we see this in porn, advertisement, and even employment posters (gee, we wonder why 52% of women drop out of the programming field after college.) It's kinda gross and defeating when you take the "red pill" and start to see it everywhere. Even more daunting when you go against the grain of prevailing thought and start talking about this being an actual problem. It just seems like everybody else took the "blue pill" and just don't want to see it. But it does have a negative effect that has been thoroughly studied.
If we accept these tenets as true, and I do and will strongly suggest that you do as well, then we have to see the attack here as sexist. The attack serves to objectify in the same manner as media: by removing individuality, quality, and self from the person. It uses the sexualized images of women just as media uses for this purpose. It is done against a woman, who as I've discussed are oppressed as opposed to men who are simply (at most) discriminated against. It was done so in an obviously malicious manner (that is, beyond parody) in order to hurt their reputation by targeting the fact that they are female (given the nature of their attack,) not by aspects of their character or refuting the merit of their knowledge. That serves to oppress via discrimination determined by their gender: sexist.
"How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?'"
The thinking is "you get her because it pleases her to be with you." The idea behind a car is not "great, now I can chase down women and rape them" it is "hey, they will get so excited by the car that they'd like to hang out with me" And most importantly, status - whether being with a high status male pleases women I don't know, but it seems to be what they often desire (also media wants us to believe that).
"That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual."
I'm sorry but I don't understand you. So what is the quality men can have as an individual? That they can own cars and chocolate, whereas women can only own nice lipstick and high heels?
As I said before, I suspect it is much more likely that certain media (ads, porn,...) only focus on certain aspects of an individual. I honestly don't understand what is meant by "subject" and "object", unless you mean "active" and "passive"? I know what subject and object are in a sentence (grammar), but other than that, what does it even mean?
Also, another point: why do men obsess about penis length (or are supposed to). Even though allegedly size doesn't matter, it seems to me men thinks size matters and pleasing women is the ultimate status symbol.
Your most recent reply is also showing as dead. So I cannot reply directly to it. And I kind of see no point. I know you said you are short of time, but it sounds to me like you concluded I am some frigid manhating bitch who can't find a decent man cuz I have issues or something. Not a place I care to go and not a discussion that will enlighten anyone.
Best of luck with whatever you were hoping to better understand when this conversation began.
A huge discussion within feminist movements has taken place and continues to take place on the subject, and I cannot do it all justice in a short comment (keywords to research: Sex-positive feminism), but my understanding is that it is best to stick with the idea that women (or any human being really) should be able to choose what they do with their bodies and with their bodies' representations -- the question is the extent of real control women are allowed to have compared to men. I'd say that since you have a general context in society where women are not equal to men and are objectified, it makes it all the more difficult to have a porn creation process that doesn't reinforce this, although exceptions exist in feminist porn.
So the assumptions seems to be that most female porn actors are forced to be porn models (and what about playboy models?)? Because otherwise it seems to me they choose their bodies representation already.
There was a study about porn actresses recently (I think for California) and it turned out that they were not less happy than other women.
That people should be allowed to choose what they do with their bodies seems a pretty basic, true demand. I don't see how women are not allowed to choose, unless they are being raped (which is a crime)?
The site is very buggy indeed. But it is possible to change the primary email adress if, when you are prompted to retype your password, you "type password and click button by mouse, not by "Enter" key" (as the post says). Maybe that would work for you...
