See this great Amazon review of an “Anarchist cowbell” on UHpinions.
Gendetrender, a great blog dedicated to the anti-genderist cause, wrote a simple explanation of what genderism is and why we should oppose it.
Genderists (social conservatives, religious fundamentalists) believe the opposite: that sex-roles of male domination and female submission are biologically innate (“biological essentialism” “gender essentialism”).
Trans-Genderists are a sect of genderists who believe cultural sex-roles (male domination, female submission) are so central to the human endeavor that non-compliance is a birth defect to be treated by medically and surgically disguising the biology of human reproduction (sexual dimorphism) in cases of “incongruence”. Further distinguishing trans-genderists from genderists is that transgenderists claim non-believers infringe on their human rights simply by non-believing.
Meghan Murphy analyzes ten myths that people propagate about prostitution.
4. The Nordic Model denies sex workers’ agency
One of the things that critics seem to find so difficult to comprehend about the Nordic Model is that it is actually about restricting buyers, not about restricting those in prostitution. That is why it decriminalizes prostituted persons. The Model doesn’t discount the possibility of prostitution by “choice” but rather establishes that the buying of women in systems of prostitution is something that the state should actively discourage.
It’s pretty simple really. The Nordic Model acknowledges that less demand for prostitution and less demand for trafficking = less prostitution and less trafficking ∴ reducing the number of women exposed to these particular types of abuse and creating a better chance of achieving gender equality.
Only in our time have historians begun to look at the historical experience of men and women separately, and to acknowledge that for most of our human past, women’s interests have been opposed to those of men. Women’s interests have been opposed by them, too: men have not willingly extended to women the rights and freedoms they have claimed for themselves. As a result, historical advances have tended to be “men only” affairs. When history concentrates solely on one half of the human race, any alternative truth or reality is lost.
From Your social constructs are showing.
A funny and thoughtful article from satire blog Wishwashington Post: Self-Proclaimed “Intellectual” Takes Moral Relativism Seriously
During a discussion online regarding systematic oppression against minorities, Matheson said, “But tell me, can we ever truly say for sure that “oppression”, as you so dramatically put it, is in fact an objectively bad thing? The world is not merely black and white, and I think perhaps you should consider good things may come from “oppression”. You claim it harms people, yet harm, as with morality, is such a subjective matter, and no self-respecting intellectual would take your arguments seriously.”
Noam Chomsky always has something insightful to say on what’s going on, and this interview with Counterpunch is no exception.
Maybe you can become rich, but you don’t care whether other people’s kids can go to school, or can afford food to eat, or things like that. In the United States, that’s called “libertarian” for some wild reason. I mean, it’s actually highly authoritarian, but that doctrine is extremely important for power systems as a way of atomizing and undermining the public.
That’s why unions had the slogan, “solidarity,” even though they may not have lived up to it. And that’s what really counts: solidarity, mutual aid, care for one another and so on. And it’s really important for power systems to undermine that ideologically, so huge efforts go into it. Even trying to stimulate consumerism is an effort to undermine it. Having a market society automatically carries with it an undermining of solidarity. For example, in the market system you have a choice: You can buy a Toyota or you can buy a Ford, but you can’t buy a subway because that’s not offered. Market systems don’t offer common goods; they offer private consumption. If you want a subway, you’re going to have to get together with other people and make a collective decision. Otherwise, it’s simply not an option within the market system, and as democracy is increasingly undermined, it’s less and less of an option within the public system. All of these things converge, and they’re all part of general class war.
Or so says Gizmodo. Also, I love the comments section:
I am amused by people today who are all OMG THEY’RE SNOOPING. Anyone who lived through the J. Edgar Hoover years has heard it all before. Just because they didn’t have today’s technology doesn’t mean they weren’t doing exactly the same thing. When I was in college everyone assumed their phones were tapped and none of us said ANYTHING that might attract attention from the FBI on the phone.
Don’t Tell Me I’ll Change My Mind, a rare childfree/antinatalist blog, asks three powerful questions to potential parents.
1. Are you okay with being responsible for giving life to someone who is a violent or immoral person, whose inexistence would have been better for humanity?
2. Are you okay with being responsible for giving life to someone who will face excruciating suffering at the hands of a violent or immoral person? And deal with ongoing suffering that interferes with their ability to function well for years after it is over?
3. Are you okay with being responsible for giving life to someone who may live a miserable existence a lot of the time as a result of uncontrollable/incurable physical or mental illnesses that horribly affect their quality of life?
If not, then you shouldn’t reproduce. Because numerous under-reported statistics on violence, suffering, and illness show that all three are high probabilities when a human is created. Sometimes a human fits into more than one of those categories.