and when women do this, and they do it all the time, the idea that it would be legally, or even socially, acceptable for the man to respon in any meaningful way would be laughed out of court. To make it unacceptable for men to EVER respond to ANYTHING a woman does, (unless she hits him first) is the essence of the entire movement against domestic violence.

sure, lots of people who claim to be for "men's rights" are idiots, but so are an equal percentage of those who claim to be for "women's rights"

when they don't have most of the guns.

this is better than Ted Haggard. Thanks to the GOP the world will again RESPECT AMERICA!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

to bring humanity and rationality to the old boys club.

Ok, maybe it would depend on the situation.

So would I if I had a practical means of doing so.

but when people believe they have the right to lie about which ones they have on the grounds that their "real self" is different from what anatomy would lead someone to believe it is essential. Especially since when people say they were tricked in this way lots of people will wonder if they wanted to be.

this pressing problem.

this is exactly the point that feminists refuse to admit (or if they admit it they claim that it's something men can/should get over): men are ALREADY enslaved to pussy in a way that women are not and never will be enslaved to cock so even if everything else were to be honestly split equally men WOULD, overall, be enslaved.

since this impossible to achieve state is probably the only way people can be "naturally" happy they end up falling back on some version of "traditional values" in the end. See the picture on the front page of the NYT for a glimpse of your future.

so of course when you apply the term oppression to both of these situations the status of women continues to be bad.

instead of the ususal activist practice of blurring the distinction.

it is the equivalent of comparing the use of a resource which is free and one which has to be paid for, or I should say it is meaningless if you consider the two situations to be equivalent.

I don't think becoming more like the enemy is the solution in this case.

maybe "strong women" are not the satisfying escapist fantasy that they used to be, for men OR women.

close up.

Health care should be subsidized for people who need it, but the existence of different rates for men and women is not evidence of non economic discrimination.

this is just more of the same appeals to the racism, ignorance and christian supremacist attitudes of the majority poor white population to focus on something other than constraining the people who are really in charge and who could really to made to help them via being forced to fund a robust safety net and public investment that will benefit everyone long term.

ANY supply of workers, no matter how educated and skilled, can be greater than the demand for them and wages will fall. A more skilled and educated populace is a good thing but it won't automatically solve the problem of unemployment.

we should have anarchy (the word actually means "no rulers" with an implication of no rules that are able to be upheld by force, it doesn't mean chaos or even a lack of voluntary rules, a market, provided there is no mechanism for compelling compliance with contracts, is a form of anarchy) in some areas of life, religion for example, or the sexual behavior of informed consenting adults in private, but in a lot of areas you have to have rules which are communally enforced.

When you get to make up your own definitions you get to be right about everything. Of course govt. spending can create jobs which contribute to the GNP.

Actually they ARE left or right issues. Seeking transcendence without an understanding of what it is you are trying to transcend may make the problems worse (or make one a pawn in the hands of those more aware or alternately be the cause of total cynicsm and non participation). There are reasons why the terms "left" and "right" exist. They refer to real things and real issues which need to be understood if any progress is to be made.

You misunderstand, a third OR MORE of Republicans believe Obama is INTENTIONALLY destroying the country because he is a moslem marxist terrorist. This violent paranoia is the problem.

Actually he is to blame, he has driven them to it by not knowing his place.

there is good evidence that some of them are those things. For 8 years anyone who had a bad word to say about any right winger was supposedly a supporter of Al Quaida, and now, according to current polls, 30 percent or more of republicans believe obama is consciously trying to destroy the country, but it is the people who point out overt racism who are rending the social fabric. Kind of like all of the racial problems in this country have historically been the fault of "outside agitators" and other malcontents. For 500 years race relations in the US have been JUST FINE and would have stayed that way indefinitely if people without a proper understanding of the situation hadn't been stirring things up. Oh right, I forgot, the obsession with Obama's birth certificate has nothing to do with race, any white president with a foreign father would be subject to the same scrutiny.

if Roosevelt "prolonged the depression" by spending too much then how is it that the depression didn't end until, but did end when, WW2 resulted in the govt. spending much MORE. To members of the reality based community the answer clearly is that the depression didn't end earlier because there wasn't ENOUGH govt. stimulus.