Why should abelsim be given latitude that we wouldn't extend to racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism?
My opinion is that embarrassed bigotry in private is still bigotry. It's good that those with such feelings recognize the harm that they bring (or at least the public shaming that they can suffer), but it makes for a simpler life to just excise such hatreds whenever you can.
It was a meat-packing plant that handles a significant portion of the beef processed in the whole country. Beef that we can't really export anymore because Trump thinks trade deficit is the same thing as a credit card and RFK is trying to kill us all.
Climate change may have had a hand in the drought, but the proximate cause for this is much more likely Trump's incompetent trade policy. If Tyson didn't see a recession coming, they'd likely retooled the plant to something else rather than scuttle the whole thing.
When George f****ing Washington , inaugural president of the United States, leads troops into battle to assert the rule of law and congress's ability to impose taxes it kind of sets a precedent.
America's had a bunch of tax rebellions, though . It's just that being a functioning democracy let us do it without anyone dying. (Save for two very notable exceptions.)
Like i said, the issue varys wildly by state or court.
Although part of the reason why men who ask for custody get it more than 50% of the time is that very often they know (or believe) they don't have a chance and so don't fight.
These chucklefucks have been screeching about civil war since LONG before Obama was elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
As the guy who buys his own wine and isn't that picky, I'd much rather open a $5 bottle than one ten times that price. Especially if it's a sweet red; then I can get an order of magnitude more drink than the snob who likes sour grapes.
(And, honestly, $50 is way too much for a common bottle of wine. Even $30 is nearly in the realm of conspicuous consumption.)
I think we have a right to be judged fairly and not because of our gender or sex. But that's a semantic point and I don't want to quibble.
I do want to push back on excusing from women their responsibility for the society we live in, however. (Or just underline an implied point we may both share.)
Nearly every man I know values the opinions of women at least as much as those of other men. When a boy sees his mom belittle his father for being insufficiently manly, he hears a lesson that sexism is bad. When a man tells a boy that the way to get a girlfriend is to be a sexist jerk the boy listens, not because he cares about the con artist, but because he's desperate for a girl who cares about him.
Men have a lot of the big levers of power, and do bear a proportionate share of our own blame, but we shouldn't excuse women who use the power they have in ways that make our society worse.
We're all in this together, and all need to do what we can to make the world we pass to our children better than the one our parents passed on to us.
I think we agree and agree.
I was careful not to use the word "ignore", because the answer to anyone sharing how they were harmed by sexism should never be anything less than "that's horrible and I hate that it happened to you."
Sexist women who claim to be "feminist" and yet feel free to denigrate men or dismiss their perspective are terrible advocates for the cause.
(Not "their" cause, because sexism is an evil that harms everyone and everyone should be against it.)
(And sealions who claim to be "men's rights activists" but just want to be sexist anti-feminist trolls are at least as bad.)
Men have the exact same right to abandon and refuse to raise their child that women do. This right is not always respected in American courts, but the same laws that protect her if he doesn't want to help also should protect him if she just wants to drop the baby and run.
And if she sabotaged the condom, stole his sperm for IVF,.or similarly took action to concieve against his wishes, then she committed a crime and should be punished. But not the child.
As far as the law or justice cares, babies could be delivered by storks.
Transphobia flourishes when it's dismissed, minimized, and forgiven.
The only differences between "men's rights" and "women's rights" comes down to unequal treatment by police and the courts. When we talk about abortion and rape, the group in question can be described a bunch of ways ("female", "xx", "uterus-having") but not accurately simply as "women".
Because trans-men are men, not women, and treating them as such is every bit as bigoted as treating trans women as men.
I am also very supportive of women's rights but lying is not helpful.
Worth knowing: although they attract a lot of anti-feminist losers, the "men's rights" activists are absolutely correct that men do not universally have the same support programs or even legal presumptions that women do. These can vary widely from state to state and even from court to court.
It's not nearly as big an issue as "they want her to die from a miscarriage", but "they presume he's the inferior parent" or "they presume he caused the violence even if he's the one bleeding" are also sexist oppression.
(Comparisons to the anti-woke "all lives matter" bullshit are apt -- men can and should recognize that relatively minor slights and injustices are not nearly as urgent as denying pregnant humans life-saving care!)
Is the answer anything other than "pretty damn well against the weapons it was worn against"?
TV and movies often depict armor as if it's little better than clothing, as if it wasn't abandoned as soon as practical counter was developed. (And then re-invented as a guard against shrapnel and very-small arms...l