(Part 2) Best social sciences books according to redditors
We found 3,842 Reddit comments discussing the best social sciences books. We ranked the 1,694 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
29. Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity
9 mentions
Used Book in Good Condition
DON'T WORRY CITIZENS!
Alice Miller, "The Drama of the Gifted Child"
> WAHHHHH! BEING SMART IS HARD!
Ta-Nehisi Coates, "Between the World and Me"
>Everyone's a little bit racist
Simone De Beauvoir, "The Ethics of Ambiguity"
>Existentialist navelgazing
Albert Camus, "The Plague"
> More existentialism, but this time people die
Brene Brown, "Daring Greatly"
>What if being some sort of cuck soyboy was actually kinda badass?
Atul Gawande, "Being Mortal"
> Killing them softly, with his loving take on the role of modern medicine in death.
Ali Rivzi, "The Atheist Muslim"
>Being an edgy teenager, but on "difficult" mode
Muhammad Yunus, "A World of Three Zeroes"
>Zero Poverty, Zero Unemployment, and Zero Net Carbon Emissions... also zero sex scenes.
ETA: short, possibly misleading synopses by someone who hasn't read these books.
Would you like to know more about journalists targeted after 9/11 and the like?
Garry Webb, the Pulitzer prize-winning American investigative journalist who investigated CIA drug running activities related to the Iran Contra affair, who latest killed himself by shooting himself in the head--twice.
Danny Casolaro, the freelance writer who shortly before his death, told people that he was nearly ready to reveal a wide-ranging conspiracy spanning the Inslaw case, Iran-Contra, the alleged October Surprise conspiracy, and the closure of BCCI.
3 days before his death:
>Casolaro's neighbor and long-time housekeeper, Olga, helped Casolaro pack a black leather tote. She remembers him packing a thick sheaf of papers into a dark brown or black briefcase. Casolaro said he was leaving for several days to visit Martinsburg, West Virginia, to meet a source who promised to provide an important missing piece of his story. This was the last time Olga saw him. Olga told The Village Voice that she answered several threatening telephone calls at Casolaro's home that day. She said that one man called at about 9:00 a.m. and said, "I will cut his body and throw it to the sharks". Less than an hour later, a different man said: "Drop dead." There was a third call, but Olga remembered only that no one spoke and that she heard music as though a radio were playing. A fourth call was the same as the third, and a fifth call, this one silent, came later that night.
Philip Marshall, former 767 captain and "special activities" contract pilot during the Iran Contra who wrote The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror.
Russell Welch, a former investigator for the Arkansas State Police Department who opened a letter containing military grade anthrax after having sounded the alarm on CIA drug smuggling activities.
Barry Jennings, the former Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department who claimed to witness multiple explosions inside WTC7 as well as "stepping over bodies". There were zero recorded casualties from the official report. Barry dropped dead 2 days before NIST released their final report on the collapse of WTC7, 7 years after having ommitting any mention of it in the 9/11 Commission report.
[David Kelly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert), the UN weapons inspector for Iraq in 2003.
>British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government set up the Hutton Inquiry, a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death. The inquiry concluded that Kelly had committed suicide, with the cause of death as "haemorrhage due to incised wounds of the left wrist" in combination with "coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis". Lord Hutton also decided that evidence related to the death, including the post-mortem report and photographs of the body, should remain classified for 70 years.[3]
Deborah Palfrey, also known as the "DC Madam, operated a "female escort" agency, who had reportedly serviced many state department officials, such as Dick Cheney, as well as certain Muslim gentlemen.
>In an interview on the Alex Jones show in July 2007, Palfrey explicitly stated, "I'm not planning to commit suicide" and made clear her motivation to present her case at trial, saying, "I plan on exposing the government in ways that I do not think they want me to expose them".[32]
David Wherley, the former commander of the 113th Fighter Wing at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, also known as the "Capital Guardians", and also the man who gave the order to scramble fighter jets over the nation's capital on the morning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, dies in "the deadliest rail crash in the history of the capital's Metrorail system"
William Colby, the former director of the CIA who was replaced by George HW Bush in the Halloween Massacre and later died of a heart attack/boating accident/suicide.
Rep. Beto O'Rourke wrote a book on ending the drug war. It is available for sale on Amazon
Dealing Death and Drugs: The Big Business of Dope in the U.S. and Mexico
/r/Beto_for_Senate
Political Scientist here. I'm not an expert on the minutae of either movement, but I feel that I have a pretty solid grasp of the broad strokes. My own research examines the role of gender in white supremacist communities.
I don't know that each 'side' has an obligation to make their ideas more palatable, but I do feel that each needs to ensure that their claims are backed up by serious quantitative (and qualitative, to an extent) evidence.
In the case of feminism, the concept - and later movement - arose from the recognition that there are definite, demonstrable and observable inequalities in society (specifically European and North American) which placed women in the position of 'inferior' citizens - if they were even considered citizens at all. Women could not vote or hold elected office; it was exceedingly rare for a woman to run a company or to even be educated, since many colleges and universities were 'men only'. These weren't hypothetical problems, they were tangible and endemic. It is a simple fact that for much of the history of western society, women have been considered to be of less 'worth' than men. This attitude has changed to an extent, but it is still the case that women are often at a disadvantage in many sectors of society - from being encouraged to enter 'feminized' careers like secretaries, nurses, teachers, etc, to often being dissuaded from entering other sectors of the workforce - IT, Industry, the Military, etc. While on paper, women have been afforded the same legal rights as men, in reality there are still observable structural barriers for women that do not exist for men.
The "Men's Rights" movement, on the other hand, is an ideology based on the assumption that as women have gained rights in society, men have been 'losing' theirs. The most commonly cited examples of this 'discrimination' are, as you've pointed out, so-called 'false rape' accusations and parental rights. More often than not, allegations of 'false rape' are based on anecdotal evidence and are therefore untrustworthy as a way of determining actual statistics on the phenomenon - although I will provide a source below which seems to indicate that such 'false rape' accusations account for less than 8% of all accusations.
While in some respects the movement has attempted to 'piggyback' itself off of more established rights movements (such as the civil rights, gay rights and women's rights), it nevertheless suffers from a crisis of evidence. Put simply, there is currently zero evidence to suggest that men are in any way the victims of widespread, systemic discrimination based on their gender. While there are instances of men receiving short shrift at the hands of judges who perhaps feel that women are simply 'better' or more 'naturally' able to care for children, these do not prove the existence of systemic or structural discrimination. (Look at Myths 4, 5, 6, specifically)
As some scholars and authors have noted (see below), the crises of masculinity so often noted and lamented by Men's Rights activists can be better explained by examining the sexist social structures put in place by other men, rather than lamenting the 'feminization' of society. Why does it seem that men lose out in custody battles? Maybe because men have been taught from an early age that women are more 'nurturing' or possess a 'maternal instinct' that makes them natural parents - which is an essentialist position that demands that women behave in a certain way. This same belief can also affect how judges (who are mostly male) choose to assign custody in cases where they are forced to.
Put simply, while feminist critiques of society are based on observable instances of institutionalized sexism, the Men's Rights movement, and its attendant critiques are not.
Additional Sources:
Cancian, Maria, Meyer, Daniel R. “Who Gets Custody?”, Demography, Volume 35-Number 2, May 1998
Philip N.S. Rumney (2006). FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE. The Cambridge Law Journal, 65 , pp 128-158 doi:10.1017/S0008197306007069
Who Cares? The classed nature of childcare
Kris Paap "Working Construction: Why White Working-Class men put Themselves -- and the Labor Movement -- in Harm's Way"
R.W. Connell "The Men and the Boys"
R.W. Connell "Masculinities"
Thomas Sowell is a black economist and author who writes on these (and other) topics very clearly and convincingly. In short: it's not about race at all - various ethnicities have been subjugated and marginalized throughout history around the world. Many have overcome adversity and become wildly successful...but it's always due to cultural values of work ethic, focus on education, and trying to create better opportunities for children, in spite of whatever social barriers may exist. Whenever political methods of "equalization" are tried they never work, because they don't come from within that group and don't address what's necessary for a given group to become successful.
Ars Moriendi, the art of dying, I feel, is often a lost concept in modern society.
Dying with dignity is an oft shunned topic of discussion, but when approached with a level headed understanding, can save tons of suffering for the dying, and even more than that, can save a lot of depression associated with people caring for the dying and their regrets about not making decisions that comforted the dying in their final days, weeks, months, or years.
It's a hard conversation for even doctors to have in industrialized nations, because the expectation is that everyone is just one medical miracle away from recovering some life they used to have, but the reality, in many cases, is that way of life may already be gone.
Expecting that way of life to come back and crazy interventions that may make the patient worse are something people often pursue towards the end, instead of accepting what they are facing, and living out the best life they can while they still have time.
If you are still reading this here, I would highly recommend the book Being Mortal by Atul Gawande as it has given me an unparalleled understanding of the expectations of aging, mortality, and dying, that I could never express as eloquently
I was going to write up a big thing, but honestly, I'm not the person to do it. The short version is that, no, they're not joking. Some people on the_donald probably are just trolls who are fucking around, but most of the people who post there are serious. Those posts mostly make it to the front page as a direct result of bots (check out /r/all/rising) but there still is a large population of real people who actively upvote and post on that stuff.
Its a complicated scene that ties in a lot of different threads of people together including 4chan/8chan shit posters, actual conservative americans, and legitimate racists with some serious overlap included between those groups. Although you might traditionally think of reddit users as young, educated, and socially liberal, it's important to remember that this site has long since expanded past the type of audience you might expect out of a similar site like slashdot and - just like in real life - there is now a huge range of people who post here.
If you're at all interested in learning more, I would suggest you read The Elephant in the Room, a short book by Jon Ronson detailing the interaction the Trump campaign has with the alt-right and - in particular - one of its leading members, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (a man who believes Sandy Hook was a fake, orchestrated false flag government operation). Also, Ronson's book Them has some pretty haunting and prophetic stories in it about the KKK attempting to rebrand and mainstream its message starting in the late 90's/early 2000's to gain political influence that really resonates and appears to have really come to term.
There is a book called The Elephant in the Room by Jon Ronson that details the influence Alex Jones has on Donald Trump.
No matter how trivial YOU find him, the person leading this country takes him quite seriously. That is something none of us can afford to take lightly. Trump quoted Jones at the RNC! Called him "Very Smart" and meets with the clown. Talk about a Confederacy of Dunces, we got one now and it's not nearly as entertaining as the book by John Kennedy Toole.
> It's anarchist in nature really. Open borders, free trade, and individual isolationism with roving bands of minorities that believe they are oppressed.
NO IT'S NOT. These are all government programs, not the absence of regulation.
Every step is government action, we're the farthest thing from anarchy.
Dude. I'm trying to help you and provide some information but you seem really dug into the "I'm not a racist" knee-jerk defensiveness. I might suggest a couple of books if you really care about learning about this stuff. These should get you started.
https://www.amazon.com/You-Want-Talk-About-Race/dp/1580056776
https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/B07D6XQQRY
2009: Beto O’Rourke, as a city council member, fighting against threats from the Democrats (!) and calls for Congress to debate drug legalization - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/drug-legalization-debate_n_157798
In 2011 Beto O'Rourke wrote a book about the war on drugs and its effects on violence - Dealing Death and Drugs: The Big Business of Dope in the U.S. and Mexico
It was the reason he ran against the long-term Democratic incumbent for the House seat.
Watch the first 5 minutes of this video of him being interview by Ryan Grim about how Beto changed the political calculus in how Democrats treat drug policy and discussion about legalization: https://youtu.be/mnZ8y0q2C5Q (...watch the whole video to learn about how Beto was one of the earliest Congressmen to refuse PAC money and how he has rallied against corporate influence in elections)
Watch his Ted Talk from 2016 where he spoke about how marijuana prohibition is racist in its origin (and has ties to El Paso): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXbFZoSMbZI
Beto has been fighting for this topic long before it was the popular thing to do.
Buy and read this book. Then read your posts here again and you'll understand what people are getting at. It's not that people don't want you to do your best to be an ally. It's that you're kind of coming into a black space to tell black people about how not-racist you are. It's good that you're speaking out against racism, but coming to the black section of reddit is kind of preaching to the choir. Reddit in general has a racism problem, so it's best to spread these types of messages in those spaces.
Even just reading the first few chapters will give you an idea of what people here are saying.
Per Nisbet and Deneen, it does logically follow that a hyper-liberal view of immigration (it is immoral to bar people from moving across states, open-borders), would require an expansion of the state to uphold order and replace the stability and social trust original communities had a priori the effective dissolution of them via widespread immigration. Individualism and the state march hand in hand.
But this political compass is fucking absurd, on that I think we can all agree.
One. The Drama of a Gifted Child by Alice Miller
Two. Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates
Three. The Ethics of Ambiguity by Simone De Beauvoir
Four. The Plague by Albert Camus
Five. Daring Greatly by Brene Brown
Six. Being Mortal by Atul Gawande
Seven. The Atheist Muslim by Ali Rizvi
Eight. A World of Three Zeros by Muhammad Yunus
edit: numbers didn’t show
Pretty funny, since there's actually some evidence for the opposite argument: that cooking makes food more nutritious, and it's a major reason humans have been so successful. Raw food is the ultimate Luddite movement, trying to take us back so far we're not even sapient any more.
Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter
Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human
>I dont see why it's a "hater" mentality to love your own people
Don't be fooled, this is not a universal claim, it is applied exclusively to the whites. No one bats an eye when non-white immigrants all huddle in one area of a city as they sometimes do and only interact with each other, speak their own language, follow their own social norms. In fact, there's been some court cases in the United States where punishments have been lessened or waived for rape and murder because the courts found it acceptable for the non-assimilated immigrants to follow their own social norms. Example: murder wife and/or kids for adultery. See sources in Ann Coulter's "Adios America: the left's plan to turn our country into a third world hellhole".
My favourite line from Jon Ronson's The Elephant in the Room: A Journey into the Trump Campaign and the "Alt-Right" was when he was talking to a Trump supporter who told him Hillary was a 'known luciferian' and he replies 'She's not a known luciferian', 'well yes and no' comes the response. Where I come from the only people who believe in luciferians and satanists are 13 year old death metal fans.
I can't speak for BBES, but respectful allies are usually welcome.
If you want learn more than you'll get out of a Reddit thread, I find So You Want to Talk About Race? is a great primer for people who want to understand, and are looking for a place to start.
Sit down and give this book a read.
From a Salon.com article on the book:
>Ultimately, Female Chauvinist Pigs want power. They equate power with being like men, and being liked by men. They're the kind of girl who's always felt more comfortable with boys, who doesn't really like other girls. Raunch is one way for them to gain access to that circle of men and to separate themselves from other women. Annie, for instance, used to enjoy Howard Stern because "it's humor masking a pretty woman-hating thing -- which I've got a good amount of in me, I guess, because I take pleasure in it."
>
>"Yeah, we're all women, but are we supposed to band together?" asks Anyssa. "Hell, no. I don't trust women."
>
>Yet as Levy points out, being the exception that proves the rule -- the girl who gets raunch, who laughs at Howard Stern -- just means the rules are still intact. As long as "acting like a man" is valued, acting like a woman will be devalued. And regardless of how you understand gender, being a woman -- having breasts, bleeding once a month -- will be a handicap.
Haldeman's personal diary, 1994 article in the New York Times.
Ehrlichman's 1995 interview with author Dan Baum, author of "Smoke and Mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure".
You have it made, little brother. You're beginning this journey at an optimal age. Your life, starting now, will be an amazing climb into all manhood has to offer the bold. Congratulations.
Now. Here are the instructions I would've given 17-year-old me.
Read:
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.
The Way of the Superior Man by David Deida.
Everything by Robert Greene.
The works of Rudyard Kipling, Jack London, and Mark Twain. Plus Jules Verne if you enjoy science fiction. Read as many other classical authors as you want, there's a very good reason their work has stuck with us.
Psychology texts. Philosophy texts. Study how to think, what it means to think, and how the way people think has changed throughout history.
Speaking of, history texts. Learn from the triumphs and failures of men before you.
Do:
Study nutrition & exercise science. I recommend looking into the Paleo nutrition philosophy, but make up your own mind based on your own research. In fact, making up your own mind based on your own research should probably be the number one thing you focus on. Never follow the lead of the herd.
Learn how to build habits. This will help to increase your productivity throughout your life. Find your ideal routine, and stick with it until it's natural; then feel free to deviate occasionally. Practice mindfulness at all times.
Learn to fight. Martial arts, boxing, wrestling - study some form of self-defense, preferably more than one. When you can handle yourself in a fight, you've taken one step further along the path of truly understanding yourself.
Study people. Talk to people. Befriend people. Piss people off when you have cause. Ultimately, lead people.
Pursue your passions. Explore what makes you tick. Know your strengths, and excel at them.
Above all else, remember:
Think with your mind. Act from your balls.
How does this article quote Dan Baum, but not name the entire book he wrote on the topic, Smoke and Mirrors. The Washington Post still hosts the first chapter of the book which is a good synopsis of the the whole thing.
Nixon didn't give a shit about "criminalizing negroes (to use the term of the day) or hippies" per se. Rather, the boogeyman of "drugs" triggered images of hippies and black Americans in the minds of the voters that the Nixon campaign wanted to sway to them away from the more progressive Democratic candidate.
Akin to the famous Lee Atwater quote, they didn't want to scream, "N@@@er! N@@@er! N@@@er!", rather they used the specter of "the dangers of drugs" to call up images of inner city street hustlers (aka black men) and hippies in the minds of the white suburban voters they wanted to scare into voting for the conservative candidate.
The ploy worked astoundingly well, unfortunately. But once Nixon won, he found that drug laws were overwhelmingly in the hands of the states, not the federal government, so he pulled some "big government" shit and made the "war on drugs" a federal issue, including the creation of the DEA.
And it's been stupidly downhill from there.
For anyone interested in my notes on this interview with Harvard, Columbia, and University of Chicago educated Thomas Sowell, on his book Intellectuals and Race (no affiliate link), please see below. I was watching it on Youtube at 1.5.x, and it's just so packed full of common sense, backed by research, that I had to take notes to do it justice. Keep in mind these are my notes, and not all are just straight quotes. So there's some intelligence guided by experience.
Substandard English (e.g. black-speak) is holding black people back. Aspects of the language (e.g. "axe" for "ask" ) traces back to both the south and Britain before that - not Africa.
In societies where widespread multiculturalism and diversity exists, you find societies that are barely able to constrain widespread violence. (e.g. India barley coheres as a nation; the number of killed between Hinduism and Muslims ran into the hundreds of thousands when Britain made India free).
Diversity in college acceptance policies doesn't produce integration. Before affirmative action, particularly in the form of diversity quotas in College acceptance policies, and you find increased division. Institutions in eras prior to diversity mandates generally had better integration and less racial division. The data for diversity programs doesn't support the existence of diversity programs - it refutes it.
The black subculture in America today is is holding blacks back. Intellectuals today should be fixing the problem, instead of extending, or exploiting it.
Progressives were the racists. Under Woodrow Wilson, certain aspects of segregation began enforcement. Liberals by insisting on their views repeatedly, without data supporting their views, setup an intellectual culture that made things worse - not better. Multiculturalism - bringing students into institutions that they're ill-qualified for, sets the students back. The " intelligentsia" pays no price for its views because there's not test, nor evidence for the basis of their ideas.
"Intellectuals" have deep intelligence in very limited areas and it's dangerous. E.g. they're a mile-deep, but an inch wide. Most have not studied affirmative action, multiculturalism, etc. But the ideas, amidst the intellectual crowd have expanded - like a plague.
"No individual or Group can be blamed for being born into circumstances that lack... advantages. But neither can 'society' be automatically assumed to be either the cause or the cure for such disparities." - Despite centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, bad policy in urban environments, etc. For the child born into challenging circumstances (e.g. Detroit vs. Greenwich, CT) - no one (e.g. not society, not whites, not me) is to blame (expect perhaps that child's parents). The average black kid today is, materially, better off than the average black kid growing up in the 50s. The difference today, is that the schools are worse, and that's bad policy (primarily, bad liberal policy - since liberals run many/most urban schools). Circumstances are not the fault of slavery, or anything else that happened 100 - 200 years ago.
James Flynn; after the Second World War, black and white American Soldiers had children. And those children, growing up in Germany, showed no IQ differences at all. The black and white kids had the same IQ. The reason that blacks and whites had the same IQ in Germany, unlike int he US, according to Flynn, is that the children growing up in Germany grew up with no black subculture. (e.g. there was no gangster rap in Germany).
... Also, just because I think it's appropriate... "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
No, but they are perpetuating the same stereotypes that justified not giving you those rights for generations and generations.
See: Enlightened Sexism and Female Chauvinist Pigs
Not to what I would consider a good academic standard. I mean, yes, he references where he gets his stats from, and dictionary definitions and a few other things.
But there's stuff he doesn't reference that he should. For example, in the above bit about powerlessness and crime, Farrell references nothing. And yet, there is (and was in 1994) a huge amount of crime research - you can even reference notions of power.
Farrell could have easily turned to the Groth Typology - written in 1979 - for rapists - which actually has categories for those who use rape as a means for power. It wouldn't have been hard for him to read about that, expand it, and then discuss it in more depth. Of course, then he would have to allow for the fact that not all rapists seek power through rape, and that this is not because men are powerless as a whole, but rather that it's about asserting masculinity.
Farrell chose not to do this. So we can assume that he either didn't read the work of other people far more qualified than he is, and therefore that he just liked the idea because it fit with his bias; or that he deliberately disregarded this research because it didn't paint men as victims of nebulous people who give commands.
Either way, he devotes a whole two fucking sentences to something that has had hundreds upon hundreds of papers done on it, and doesn't bother to elaborate or prove that it is a fact.
Not only that, but Farrell doesn't devote much time to proving anything - his book is a series of statements about what is really going on, without much proof at all to back it up. Most feminist books for example, have a far sharper focus with about as many references.
A recent one I read - Pornland by Gail Dines (fear not, I disagreed with her and her stance, but I had to read it for the same reasons I read Farrell) focused solely on sex and porn and women's role in pornography. Where Farrell would give about a page's worth to a subject, Dines made sure she gave a chapter, with lots of references. She didn't try to cram her notion of feminism into the pages - and even though I disagreed with her bias and her conclusion, I couldn't really disrespect the way she wrote it. It was in a university library because of the difference in the way it was treated.
Farrell's central point is that male power is a myth - and yet he devotes 350 pages to that - which is fucking pitiful - because he threw in every single man, so many men's issues and the kitchen sink. Considering that just describing masculinity as a concept took 300 pages or so for R.W. Connell. Here's her book - go and look at the references she uses and how much she references. Which is of course, also in university libraries.
Yet, Farrell deals with concepts with at most a page - for some a sentence or two - and at worst, a foregone conclusion. So rather than reasoning out his thesis that rape, murder, domestic violence are features of powerlessness - by, you know, going and talking to men who have done such things, then using research that fits with that view, he just declares it so, and shows none of the workings to get to that conclusion. That sentence alone should have warranted a chapter of its own, with lots of interviews with men, lots of statistics, lots of research - pointing out that the profiles of men who do such things includes features of men's powerlessness like poverty and lack of education. But instead, he just doesn't bother, gives a two-line throwaway and onto bigger ideas.
I always think about it like maths. You have to show your workings - same with research. Farrell is fucking sloppy - he shows none of his workings. He just gives you the answer, and you can't really see if it's right or not. It just is, as far as he's concerned. So he doesn't have enough references to show his workings.
> This isn't to attack anyone personally for identifying with this word, but to shed light on my experiences in the hopes that we can come to greater conclusions together.
I really appreciate this being at the beginning. I want this post to be a fruitful, respectful discussion among women, not a flamewar between feminists and anti-feminists. I'm willing to criticize feminism as a card-carrying member, but I'm not willing to debate about the existence of misogyny or whether or not women face unique challenges that need addressing.
First, I believe you are perfectly justified for not calling yourself a feminist -- and I say this as a self-identifying feminist. When a woman rejects the label, a lot of feminists' knee-jerk impression will be that this particular woman doesn't care about being treated with equality, is ungrateful for the gains of feminism, is brainwashed by the patriarchy and brimming with internalized misogyny, etc.; but the unfortunate fact is that mainstream (liberal) feminism continues to be hugely problematic. It's been racist and classist, myopic and puerile. It does not promote analysis. It treats the white, western, middle-class, able-bodied, hetero cis-woman experience as universal. It confuses florid displays of sexuality with empowerment and conservativism in that area (lowercase c) with oppression, which is not only NOT liberating for many women, it's also disrespectful to many survivors of sexual assault (such as yourself) and racist. Just google "Slutwalk and racism". There's also this book called Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture that I read a few years ago, and the author Ariel Levy has a lot of the same criticisms you do. I'm really glad that this was one of the first books I read when I was new to being a feminist, because I think it helped me to steer myself in a different direction. I don't remember absolutely everything, and it may or may not contain ideas I might disagree with at this point, but I still recommend it. And I also agree with you about there being an inordinate amount of focus on relatively petty things -- liberation isn't achieved by one's stance regarding pubic hair or the color pink.
Your post is so, so important. I know that when many women won't identify as a feminist, a lot of the time it's because they have no idea what feminism actually entails. However, it's also perfectly possible that a woman rejects the label because she's actually aware of the problems in the mainstream feminist movement and doesn't want to align herself with it. I don't think it's fair that feminists demand that all women who believe in equality adopt the label. I wish I could get behind "Believe in gender equality? Then you're a feminist!", but I can't. There are good reasons to not call yourself one. And this should piss feminists off! This should make feminists reflect on their movements, analyze their beliefs, and work to correct the inadequacies (like intersectional feminists do). What feminists shouldn't do is react like an immature youtuber, where anyone with any criticism is "just a hater", or "self-hating and ignorant". Calling yourself a feminist doesn't magically make you enlightened, it doesn't give you a leg-up on being just and fair, and NOT calling yourself one does not translate into a knowledge deficit. Feminists who are worth a damn already know this. This discussion is already going on, but it needs to be even more widespread than it already is. Thanks for making the post.
The Pew Research Center found that a significant majority of whites voted for Trump, regardless of their education level or economic status. To paraphrase Ijeoma Oluo, the election wasn't just about race, but race was a factor.
Everything is on facebook as the other person said.
I like Pete too, but I'll take this opportunity to point out some reasons I like Beto more, if you don't mind.
and here's a list of sponsored bills
conserving 7000 acres of public land (sponsored by Beto)
Repealing some portions of the Patriot Act
and cosponsoring a bill to repeal much more of it, although it didn't pass
Sponsoring a bill to reduce wait times for Veteran's claims (it was incorporated into another bill)
and many more bills about veterans and immigration. In addition to the RIGHTS Act he will also be able to point to many other liberal bills he sponsored that didn't become law. He'll be able to say that he's been fighting the good fight.
This is something Pete can't say and an advantage he doesn't have, because he was never in the federal government. I know he has his own local accomplishments, but they are local, and they didn't involve wrangling with Congress, which I believe is a very important skill.
Positives of Pete over Beto: I think his education and his military experience is very impressive, but neither necessarily would make him a great president. He is also younger by 10 years, but that doesn't really mean much to me. Good luck to both of them though.
Rep. Beto O'Rourke wrote a book on legalizing marijuana that's available for sale on Amazon....
Dealing Death and Drugs: The Big Business of Dope in the U.S. and Mexico.
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.
It explores masculinity from a perspective of evolutionary psychology from Hunter/Gatherer societies and why certain masculine traits are valued.
After reading it its quite easy to look at how men interact and understand why they do the things they do, and how and why certain things are respected among them.
I'm having some issues finding information on desegregation experiences in schools (USA, particularly private schools in the north-east).
This article is the best one I've found so far. As far as books go, I read Going to School in Black & White but it wasn't really what I was expecting. So You Want To Talk About Race was an excellent (if not always enjoyable) read though. I've also read a few general books on the civil rights movement, and more articles/blog posts than I can name.
Also looking for books about "The Stanley Plan" in Virginia.
Would anyone be able to point me towards some more resources? I'll take anything really: timelines, anecdotes, books/biographies or speculation (just label it as such). I'm also looking for information from both perspectives (white vs PoC)... and I'm aiming for realism, not happy go-lucky unicorns that fart rainbows. There is a reason that (it seems like) a lot of the first PoC admitted to previously white schools transferred out after all, and while I can make some guesses about the reasoning that's all it would be.
For background -
>!This is for a Harry Potter -ish story set at Ilvermorny during the 60s, with the assumption that Rappaport's Law essentially banned muggle-borns from the school until it's repeal in '65, and discrimination is a pretty big theme. A lot of it revolves around the whole blood purity thing, the racism that those muggle-born kids learned from society/parents and how those things interact. Also: the squib marches, voldemort's rise and first wizarding war from a foreign perspective, the civil rights movement and how that effects MACUSA's policies, and so on. Yes, the story spans a few years :D!<
The citation has been posted repeatedly.
Social Research Methods by Alan Bryman
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199588058/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_asp_joyED.063DVJW
I believe it is a quote from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Smoke-Mirrors-Drugs-Politics-Failure/dp/0316084468
I wish I knew the page number for you, but I do not have the time to pull it up.
Do you have a source on that? Where is this from?
e: Seems to be from https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Research-Methods-Alan-Bryman/dp/0199588058
> I think there's going to be coups soon in western countries within 20 years if the people don't get their heads straight. I think the military knows what they need to do, and might step in.
France didn't care about this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435772/Former-commander-French-Foreign-Legion-75-arrested-Pegida-protest-Calais.html
Why would the French military men start growing a pair in the future? Don't you guys get it? It's over. http://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312302592/
We are witnessing the SPOILS (women, welfare, housing, education, medicine) being divvied up between the VICTORS (various third-world tribes under the banner of Islamofascism).
In Eastern Europe there may be military coups to get out of the EU and setup strong borders against Western European third-worlders (who will soon be on the move for fresher economies and women to exploit). These coups will be quickly squashed by a militarized EU and NATO.
Western Europe is lost. You guys need to get that into your heads. Even if all third-worlders left today, suicidal degeneracy will destroy what's left because the CORE of the West is ROTTEN.
Ask yourselves, what's left to protect? Gay rights? Feminism? Self-hate? Transgenderism? Crony-capitalism? Soulless consumerism? No wonder European men don't bother lifting a finger for the women anymore. http://russia-insider.com/en/rts-anissa-naouai-interviews-iben-thranholm/ri12471
Europeans have checked out.
I'd recommend Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy.
When you're done with those, may I recommend Being Mortal
Here is the book:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bamboozle-11-War-Terror/dp/1468094580/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1525111053&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+big+bamboozle
Raw food isn't good for you. You should read Richard Wrangham's book Catching Fire, it goes into detail about how raw food isn't healthy for the human body.
If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:
There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.
Some honorable mentions:
As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons
The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.
Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.
The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.
Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.
You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.
So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.
Would you like to know more?
Garry Webb, the Pulitzer prize-winning American investigative journalist who investigated CIA drug running activities related to the Iran Contra affair, who committed suicide by shooting himself in the head--twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb
Russell Welch, a former investigator for the Arkansas State Police Department who opened a letter containing military grade anthrax after having sounded the alarm on CIA drug smuggling activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Welch
Danny Casolaro, the freelance writer who shortly before his death, told people that he was nearly ready to reveal a wide-ranging conspiracy spanning the Inslaw case, Iran-Contra, the alleged October Surprise conspiracy, and the closure of BCCI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Casolaro
3 days before his death:
Casolaro's neighbor and long-time housekeeper, Olga, helped Casolaro pack a black leather tote. She remembers him packing a thick sheaf of papers into a dark brown or black briefcase. Casolaro said he was leaving for several days to visit Martinsburg, West Virginia, to meet a source who promised to provide an important missing piece of his story. This was the last time Olga saw him. Olga told The Village Voice that she answered several threatening telephone calls at Casolaro's home that day. She said that one man called at about 9:00 a.m. and said, "I will cut his body and throw it to the sharks". Less than an hour later, a different man said: "Drop dead." There was a third call, but Olga remembered only that no one spoke and that she heard music as though a radio were playing. A fourth call was the same as the third, and a fifth call, this one silent, came later that night.
David Kelly, the UN weapons inspector for Iraq in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government set up the Hutton Inquiry, a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death. The inquiry concluded that Kelly had committed suicide, with the cause of death as "haemorrhage due to incised wounds of the left wrist" in combination with "coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis". Lord Hutton also decided that evidence related to the death, including the post-mortem report and photographs of the body, should remain classified for 70 years.[3]
Deborah Palfrey, also known as the "DC Madam, operated a "female escort" agency, who had reportedly serviced many state department officials, such as Dick Cheney, as well as certain Muslim gentlemen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey
In an interview on the Alex Jones show in July 2007, Palfrey explicitly stated, "I'm not planning to commit suicide" and made clear her motivation to present her case at trial, saying, "I plan on exposing the government in ways that I do not think they want me to expose them".[32]
Barry Jennings, the former Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department who claimed to witness multiple explosions inside WTC7 as well as "stepping over people". There were zero recorded casualties in the official report. Dropped dead 2 days before the release of the Final Report of the Collapse of WTC7 in 2008.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Barry_Jennings
http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/
Philip Marshall, former 767 captain and "special activities" contract pilot during the Iran Contra who wrote The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bamboozle-War-Terror/product-reviews/1468094580/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&amp;showViewpoints=1
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/book_reviews/2013/4011bamboozle_murder.html
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
David Wherley, the former commander of the 113th Fighter Wing at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, also known as the "Capital Guardians",and also the man who gave the order to scramble fighter jets over the nation's capital on the morning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, dies in "the deadliest rail crash in the history of the capital's Metrorail system"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124581129913745441.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_Wing
William Colby, the former director of the CIA who was replaced by George HW Bush in the Halloween Massacre and later died of a heart attack/boating accident/suicide.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby
Obama’s ‘kill list’ critic found dead in New York City
http://www.dailypaul.com/270064/obama-s-kill-list-critic-found-dead-in-new-york-city
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” ― Aristotle, Metaphysics
Funny you say that, because Beto agrees. He literally wrote a book about it.
> The Elephant in the Room: A Journey into the Trump Campaign and the “Alt-Right
It's free to read (in the US) if you have Amazon Prime.
Think about how unbridled immigration from third-world countries and open-arms refugee policies affects a nation's law, culture, traditions, and political philosophy. Just go take a peek at Europe's cultural suicide.
And I challenge you to think critically about the related issues independent of ethnicity! Resist the leftist impulse to view everything through the lens of race, and you'll gain some harrowing insights about what is happening in the world.
***
Read one of these books:
Observe the destruction of the family and the increasing infidelity, glorification of casual sex, and out-of-wedlock child births (which is one of the major predictors of criminality). The media normalizes so much of this.
Consider the growth of the government and the ever-increasing dependence on government by citizens.
***
I could go on.
He has written maybe a dozen books about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Race-Culture-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465067972
https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Economics-and-Politics-of-Race-Audiobook
https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728
https://www.amazon.com/Race-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/067930262X
https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X
But here is a speech he wrote about three such books (Race and Culture, Migrations and Culture, and Conquests and Cultures.)
https://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html
Note he immediately points out not only that things aren’t equal or just, but also that there’s no reason one should expect equality, nor that we should expect everyone to behave morally. That’s specifically what I was responding to re. your post.
The study itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study
Thomas Sowell's book where he talks about this study and much, much more: https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728
Sowell also talks a lot about the subject in his autobiography-- and he has a really good perspective on this as a black man who grew up in Harlem, became a Marxist, studied economics, and then later became fiscally conservative after working at the labor department and realizing that they actually didn't want him to prove the truth about the minimum wage due to the political implications: https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Odyssey-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0684864657
If you don't want to read the books, here's a fairly quick youtube interview on the Intellectuals and Race book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ImP-gJvas
Sowell does write about race and culture, too.
But he is also a serious economist, yes.
There is a lot of research going on with organizations and journals dedicated to the subject.
American Psychological Association: Division 51 Society for Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. This is probably your best resource. They have a page dedicated Research Briefs. Their Div 51 Journal - Psychology of Men & Masculinity will provide a thorough review of research published in the area.
There is also the Men and Masculinities Journal, the
Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, and the
Journal of Men's Studies. I'm sure that I am missing some but these are the ones that I know of. You could probably also find a text book that covers a lot of these ideas. I think the standard is APA Handbook of Men and Masculinities, Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, and Masculinities 2nd Edition.
If you find anything you think interesting please post it over to /r/manfeelings. I'm collecting interesting articles and pieces over there.
Masculinity Studies is a huge field in Gender Studies, there are shelves and shelves full of books about masculinity. This book sounds like a good starting place: http://www.amazon.de/Masculinities-R-W-Connell/dp/0520246985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1414234224&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=masculinity
Porter is so convincing to many gamers/nerds, I believe, because nerds traditionally did not conform with at least some aspects of the "man box," which just makes this rabid anti-feminism and misogyny even harder to stomach for me.
I really enjoyed Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, especially the chapter about "Pigs in Training" where she examines the oversexualization of female youth. Also fascinating was her analysis of this category of women in the workforce called "loophole women" who consider themselves an exception to the rule of timid females in business, boasting about having "the biggest cock in the building" to seem more "male" than their female co-workers. And she looks into the commodification of sex as it relates to the perception of empowerment. It was a quick read and very relatable to me at a time when I was struggling to make sense of what femininity and sexuality and feminism really meant for me.
http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1312261847&amp;sr=8-1
There's an awesome book called Female Chauvinist Pigs that looks at how we went from women burning bras to 18 year olds posing for girls gone wild. It's a great read and I highly recommend it! It explained a lot about my own journey into feminism. =)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0743284283?pc_redir=1414449178&amp;amp;robot_redir=1
> deciding to be a part of society means that you agree to be taxed for the common good.
No it doesn't. I'm part of society and I don't agree to be taxed for the common good.
I don't even agree that it is for the common good (but even if it were, I'm not agreeing to pay).
>> Republicans, for example, give a lot more of their own money to charity than Democrats.
> lol, Source?
Uh, reality?
How about this? Here for a summary.
It's pretty much a commonplace now. Conservatives give about one-third more of their income than liberals.
If you are interested in learning more about this, there is a famous economist you may have heard of called Thomas Sowell, who has written extensively on this topic.
His most extensive work on the topic, from my perspective, is the book below:
http://www.amazon.com/Race-And-Culture-World-View/dp/0465067972
edit: spelling
Thomas Sowell, probably the greatest black intellectual alive today has been saying as much for a long time. And of course I doubt whites have more sensible political opinions, the only difference is that blacks have an easier time asking for handouts and special treatment (even if in reality it harms them more than help), whites would do the same stupid things if they could.
Race and Culture: A World View and Black Rednecks and White Liberals are two great books by Thomas Sowell on the subject.
Of course, in the current climate of political correctness paranoia, anything that can in any way be interpreted as criticism of a 'minority' is not acceptable, whatever it is true or not.
>And then there is this thread of comments where one person asks why an article about bisexual males is included in /r/feminisms.
You'll notice that that person got pretty heavily downvoted and that a whole bunch of heavily upvoted people in that thread politely took apart the idea that feminism shouldn't involve itself in the issues of LGBT men, including one of the moderators. I would not take that as a sign of being unwelcome.
>The closest that anybody came was when somebody pointed out how feminism is concerned with the expecations placed on men and how they effect women's inequality.
I think that's an important issue to consider because it works both ways. The perpetuation of women's inequality also hurts men. There is a reciprocal effect in oppressive systems that necessarily create difficult situations for those who are supposed to be privileged within it; thus the genesis of many male gendered social issues and traps.
Sometimes one has to consider issues discretely, other times you can only consider them as part of an interconnected system of social relations. What happens to women impacts men and vice versa to varying degrees for different issues.
>Am I wrong about this? Is feminism concerned with men's experiences as well?
These days there as many feminisms as there are feminists. A welter of different responses could easily accompany your question. My answer is yes. It absolutely is. Partially for the reasons I outlined above- the interconnected nature of humanity- and partially because the business of undoing the various straitjackets of hegemonic gender require everyone's participation.
Men's Lives is one of the leading gender studies texts on masculinity; it's an anthology.
Masculinities is also a critical text. What I meant by 'hegemonic gender' is elucidated on in its pages, and as the title implies, Professor Connell's thesis is that there are multiple ways of 'doing' masculinity in our world that vary by culture, race, class, age, and so on. Her contention is that each plays a critical role in maintaining the established norms of gender, while some are more subversive.
Manhood in America analyses the relatively recent history of how modern ideas of what it means to be a man (the ideas of your father that you rebelled against, likely) came into being.
On Amazon's "Related Books" pane you can find several others on this subject by men and women alike and it'll give you some insight into the multiplicity of progressive and feminist perspectives on manhood in Western culture.
I think part of the issue that so many of us, men and women, still suffer from is that we do tend to see everything oppositionally. Even I'm still getting out of that Manichean mindset. However, as you read and research you'll eventually come to see the at times delicate but synchronous waltz of men and women's relations within feminism. You should understand that women discussing their issues vis a vis men they've dealt with or been hurt by is not an attack against you as a man, but attempting to guilt them for speaking up will be problematic.
Rather, try to understand where they're coming from and why. The vast majority of feminist women do not hate, automatically mistrust, automatically dismiss, or automatically marginalise men. But discussing feminist issues requires frank discussion of people's (men and women's) experiences with gender, which often includes conflicts with masculinity and/or men, as that's just how power is often distributed and flowing.
The trick is to learn not to be threatened by it and go "but not all men are like that!" and you'll be fine. Because we all know that. :P
Conflict is omnipresent in feminisms. Conflict is what gave rise to feminisms rather than just a continued unitary feminism. Disagreements are common, writers and bloggers go back and forth with each other, academic conferences can be acrimonious, battles of inclusion are still being waged in various sectors... It wouldn't be feminism without the arguing, I'll tell you that!
You learn to embrace it, after a while.
What feminism en toto consists of is thousands of groups, great and small, millions upon millions of men, women, and those otherwise identified, disassociated women's and gender studies departments in universities worldwide, tonnes of academics, writers, intellectuals, slam poets, street activists, clinic escorts, journalists, editors, web mavens, bloggers, artists, musicians, and more who inform feminism with their work, research, reporting, passion, art, and every day experiences.
They're never all going to agree with one another. :)
Feminism isn't one thing controlled from a central location wherein we all have nice matching hot pink uniforms- awesome as those would be. It's very widespread and diffuse. There's room for quite a lot within it.
If you look, you'll find your place. ::smiles::
https://www.amazon.com/Gook-John-McCains-Racism-Matters/dp/0967943345
McCain again. This is fun.
Published in 2008:
John McCain's Racism and Why It Matters
Here's my list so far. It's a mix of FTM-specific, general trans, and gender studies books, including essays, memoir, and more academic works. In no particular order:
Gender Trouble by Judith Butler
Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us by Kate Bornstein
Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation by Kate Bornstein and S. Bear Bergman
Nina Here Nor There by Nick Krieger
Female Masculinity by Judith Halberstam
Nobody Passes - Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity edited by Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
Whipping Girl by Julia Serano
How Sex Changed: A History of Transexuality in the United States by Joanne Meyerowitz
Becoming a Visible Man by Jamison Green
Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer by Riki Wilchins
PoMoSexuals: Challenging Assumptions About Gender and Sexuality edited by Carol Queen
Genderqueer: Voices From Beyond the Sexual Binary edited by Joan Nestle
From the Inside Out: Radical Gender Transformation, FTM and Beyond edited by Morty Diamond
Second Son by Ryan Sallans
Why are Faggots So Afraid of Faggots? by Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
and the must-read fiction:
Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg
I'll edit this if I can find any others, I'm probably missing a couple. Been a big non-fiction reading year for me!
EDIT: Edited to add links, and a few more on my wish list I haven't picked up yet.
Letters for my Brothers: Transitional Wisdom in Retrospect edited By Megan M. Rohrer, M.Div. & Zander Keig, M.SW.
That's Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation edited by Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
Transgender Voices: Beyond Women and Men by Lori B. Girshick
Just Add Hormones: An Insider's Guide to the Transsexual Experience by Matt Kailey
The Testosterone Files: My Hormonal and Social Transformation from Female to Male by Max Wolf Valerio
> I can't change those standards with the flick of a switch.
Long term project of bodily acceptance ahoy! Work on this slowly, don't beat yourself up for having bad days or wanting to make longer term changes, but try and think positively about what you've got. An important part of the project can be to try and give yourself positive affirmations and override negative self descriptors in your internal narrative, over time this can help even if at first it feels like you're just sort of faking it. This doesn't mean you have to like where you are, but trying to soften words like hate, or ideas like never being happy if you can't blend in immediately. You don't have to aim for happy, but aiming for unhappy but accepting and working towards changes can be a big shift.
> things aren't going my way right now and I'm at a last-ditch point where it's pass or give up on ever being happy. I know how I feel. People keep telling me how to feel but I can't just decide to be happy as I am.
Look you don't have to be happy as you are, but you have to try and accept how things are at the minute while working to change what can be changed. This is a long slow process and it sucks. Things will get better as transition goes on, but it'll take time and effort and the bit before then is going to grind and fucking suck.
Breasts: padded bras and home made breast forms are better than nothing. Go smaller rather than bigger, just something there to break up the outline of your body will do.
Clothes: two layers of not like painfully tight but snug underwear (optionally like leggings or whatever over the top as well), google search to learn the mystic arts of tucking, but TL;DR gently move testicles up/in, tuck penis down back, use underwear to hold in place, wear baggy trousers, multiple layers of skirt (look okay when I do skirts I'm into underskirts in addition).
Hair: Neaten up at hairdressers, use good shampoo/conditioning.
What am I forgetting:
Good luck, may the force be with you. Oh enjoy your studies as well :)
If your comment was genuine, you have a civic responsibility to read this 5-star, easy to understand book so you can learn how to not be an accidental racism apologist.
He even wrote a book on the subject.
Lodge 49 S01E06 The Mysteries
We are somewhere between Albedo and Citrinitas, or the White Phase to the Yellow Phase. Larry's memory is heavily cast in yellow light, as is his room and upholstered chairs, even his shirt. Cinitras is when we change from the Moon to the Sun, from reflecting the light of others to becoming a source of light ourselves.
In the three Pillars of the Tree of Life, Severity, Mercy and Balance, Dud seems to be taking the path of Severity (which starts with passivity), Liz the Path of Mercy (which starts with taking action), and Ernie the Path of Balance (living in the here and now).
“He who thinks a fire, is a fire.” is a hex being cast by Wallis Smith onto child Larry. What a dickish thing to do to your girl-on-the-side’s son. In real lodges, a President only serves a one year term, to keep their heads from getting too swelled like this, and the officer’s line keeps moving people up so that will be many Past Presidents lying around to check the power of the current year’s one should he get out of line. Those Thanksgiving decorations, including the bark canoe, are pretty sweet tho.
“Except we’re the Lynx. Not the Masons. The Masons were wannabe Rosicrucians. And the Rosicrucians were a hoax that pretty much just got out of hand. You know, there's a really great essay by this British junkie--" There have been so many conjectures about the origins of Freemasonry by so many authors, all of whom contradict each other, that this essay of Duds could be hidden among any of the Prestonian Lectures, the hundreds of books published by Lewis Masonic, or since Scotland is part of Great Britain, it could be Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland’s Century. But we see Dud has taken seriously Blaise’s statement that he wouldn’t respect Dud if he didn’t put in the work and study necessary to earn becoming a Knight.
[Edit: Hat tip to /u/ficta, who saw the clue was in "British junkie", which I completely missed despite it being there in the closed captions. This makes the essay most likely Historico-Critical Inquiry Into the Origin of the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons by Thomas De Quincey. Warning: It has a wandering, fatiguing intro, just skip to Chapter 2. ]
“Who’s not afraid of the dark, Liz? At least it makes sense. You know what doesn’t make sense? Being afraid of the light.” …says the guy starting a nightshift job where he will be chased by dark shadowy figures similar to the shadow man alchemical symbol for Earth.
Champ’s Marxist rants about corporations are self-fulfilling. He chooses to place himself in the pressure cooker, and refuses to step away. He chooses to work two jobs at the same time. I wonder if he also saves money by having no home or bed to sleep in. His anti-capitalism rants offer no solution, no way out, nothing to change to, just bitterness at his alienation and disempowerment. Maybe if he quit his speed habit he could afford to quit one of his bottom of the ladder jobs and be less stressed. While Dud idealizes pastoral naturalism, Champ demonizes industrial capitalism. Even a future when Champ retires and is replaced by robots is dystopian. Dystopian literature is a particularly bad fantasy genre that misleads angsty teen mid-wits into believing they’re in-on-the-secret visionaries.
Ernie is declared Sovereign Protector, which Jung would say now makes Ernie a Senex.
Larry “goes down swinging” in the same spot outside the lodge of his childhood fist fight.
Dud is quickly moving up in the world. From a Fool, through the three Medieval ranks of Those who Work, and now to Those Who Fight. (Er, those who drive away quickly.)
Notice what the thieves are stealing? They’re cutting out copper electrical lines from the Orbis warehouse.
Alice’s motivational exhortations ("You're so weak! You suck at this!") are all dude bro shit talking, which takes a shift in thinking for some to understand how it works: She challenges you, saying who you are is not good enough. You overcome her by proving her wrong and doing better. It’s her quick way of filtering for winners, which are people willing to push themselves to improve.
Alice has displaced the Father's "Relax" pillow, throwing it onto the floor, and taken the Father's position on the couch herself while she challenges Liz to "improve her core". She can casually do this because Alice's name means "nobility".
"You moved the couch". The couch for Liz is the structure that she has placed herself, her father, and her brother into since childhood, giving her comfort. Liz has finally developed enough core (spirit) to shift her couch, and shift the relationships that the three have all been locked in even past death, breaking at last the parent's hold over them all. This breakthrough was not without risk, and the power released by the child rebelling against the parent and breaking these relationship constraints has injured and hospitalized her.
Liz has destroyed the image of her old self, transforming into someone new. While Dud's changes come from study and learning, Liz's changes result from intoxication. She ends with a cable tow tied around her neck. She may have stumbled on the carpet in the same place a second time as when she went to answer the door earlier ...or she may have stumbled on her father's Relax pillow that was thrown there by Alice. And did she really stumble there earlier, or just injure herself in the same place Dud is injured when she said his name out loud?
The scrolls will now become the McGuffin of the show? They're going to feel really dumb when they find out the Corpus Hermeticum is available on Kindle. What about all the first editions already sitting in the rediscovered library? Are they chopped liver?
Avery again gets 15 seconds of screen time, now making the character a Chekhov's gun. His name means "counsel". Real lodges issue membership cards that travelling members use to identify themselves as "members in good standing" to other lodges that also shows their rank within the organization. There used to be certain phrases and handshakes, but are only used ceremonially anymore because frankly once learned those don't expire when members get cheap and stop paying their dues. We're all now trained to look for a current membership card to enforce against travelling cheapskates that aren't current in dues with their home lodge drifting around satellite lodges to continue milking unpaid for membership benefits. You quickly learn to flash your current membership card first thing to the bartender when visiting any of your order's out of town lodge's taverns to show you're in good standing with your home lodge, and the first thing every bartender looks for is the current year on your card. The Grand Lodge officers are particularly diligent on flashing their membership cards because they want to discourage lax security and encourage enforcing keeping everyone up in their dues. "Is there room at the Inn?", if a real Lynx phrase used to identify a travelling Lynx member to another lodge when they don't have a current membership card, has got to be the lamest phrase ever, and this kind of easy to fake impostor credentialism is precisely why all the fraternities have moved on from using secret handshakes and password phrases to rewarding paying your annual dues with a membership card with the new year's graphics, card color background, and the newly paid for year prominently displayed ...that expires when the next lodge dues are up.
There is a theory that Lodge 49 itself is a character, and that its spirits speaks to the main characters through birds and weather. If so, the happy bird chirps and bright light when Avery crosses over the threshold and under the lintel means at least the Lodge spirits like him.
Kenneth Welsh has his own theory why his character Larry punched Dud.
The closing a cappella version of “Nature Boy” was sang by Tom Patterson's wife Susy Kane in their living room.
There are many who exhibit the traits that you consider "alpha"; leadership, firm character, integrity (maintaining their frame). The issue is that their goals may be terrible for others. Many incarcerated murderers are attractive to women, but are not "great men".
Jack Donovan touches on the dual concept of "being a good man" and "good at being a man". To summarise in a sentence: the first is creating a good society with men while the second is surviving as a man in a tribe. The Way of Men is about this concept; read the book as my one sentence summary does not do the subject any justice.
/u/RedSunBlue has a good description. Traits that are associated with "alpha" are those that demonstrate good health and genetics (women want to reproduce with you); "beta" traits are those that make men good providers (women want a LTR with you).
Alpha traits are said to be best because they create value; beta traits give value.
If you read Jon Ronson's Kindle single about Alex Jones and the RNC, apparently Trump tried to get Beck on board with a trip to Mar-a-Lago, and Beck viewed it as manipulative.
Have you read 'Catching Fire'? It's a book about cooking and its role in human evolution. I've found it an interesting, informative and fun read.
About plants being not very hard to eat... well, most grains are quite coarse in their natural state, but if you are able to cook them into porridge, you can get a lot of protein and fats out of them.
Except that phaseolids contain lectins as well as other indigestible and potentially harmful compounds.
While cooking doesn't necessarily take indigestible foods and make them digestible, it does, as you mentioned, aid in digestion, allowing for less energy to be consumed in the digestive process so, the caloric yield of eating cooked foods would be higher.
Check out Catching Fire and Beans
Awesome, and congrats on all the work you're doing! Good luck moving; I always find that process really stressful, but then settling into a new place is great.
Self-Reliance really helped me out early in transition, and so did the book Nobody Passes, in case you want to check it out once you're in your new place.
Not only that, he literally “wrote the book” on it back in 2011. You can buy it on Amazon.com
> marijuana legalization
I saw that Booker got some headlines because he just endorsed legalization. Beto's consistently been a proponent and literally wrote a book about it back in 2011.
I started to make one a while back but didn't get too far. There are just too many great books to choose from.
Classics 1950-1970
What is Conservatism?
The Conservative Mind
The Road to Serfdom
The Constitution of Liberty
Ideas Have Consequences
The Quest for Community
Economics in One Lesson
Capitalism and Freedom
In Defense of Freedom
Age of Reagan 1970-1990
The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945
Modern Times
Knowledge and Decisions
A Conflict of Visions
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Roots Of American Order
Modern Must Reads 1990-Today
The Clash of Civilizations
A History of the American People
The Vision of the Annointed
Intellectuals and Society
Illiberal Reformers
Restoring the Lost Constitution
How To Be A Conservative
Here it is!
I normally do link books whenever I mention them, don’t know why I didn’t this time.
Also, Ronson wrote a short follow-up in 2016 at the height of the campaign season, The Elephant in the Room, about Jones, the Alt-Right, and the Trump Campaign, generally about the rise of extreme conspiracy theories becoming mainstream and a presidential candidate (sadly now POTUS) embracing them and endorsing someone like Jones, who has now become famous and people all over buy into his crap. Interesting section where Ronson “reconnects” with Jones, 20 years after their adventure. Which, by the way, Jones had a completely different interpretation of, naturally.
Also, Ronson's short piece "Elephant in the Room."
https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Room-Journey-Campaign-Alt-Right-ebook/dp/B01LXOO7UQ
I think Ronson is the perfect person to do a long expose on Jones. Him and Jones have a long relationship and Jones seems to trust Ronson.
If anyone would like to learn about Alex Jones I recommend a book by a guy who actually knows the guy. Jon Ronson actually happens to know Alex Jones. He worked with him for a while and they diverged. One went into conspiracy theories and the other into journalism. The book goes into a lot of it. He also spends a lot of time talking about Roger Stone and more. I... I just really like the book.
He also had a little kindle single about the 2016 campaign and the alt-right, featuring a reunion with Alex Jones (it was written before the election, so Ronson was still confident Trump would remain a fringe character like Jones).
This is the textbook if anyone was interested https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199588058/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_asp_joyED.063DVJW
Well, I'd personally say that it's not likely to be an issue.
Historically, the United States has a pretty long history of people already in the United States worrying about new groups entering the US.
This involves rolling out a remarkably-constant-across-the-centuries list of concerns with each group. That they will force cultural change on the existing inhabitants. That they come from poorer places than the US, and will make the US poorer once they arrive. That they suffer from sexual immorality. That they will force their religion on others. That they suffer from radical political ideas and will destroy American political institutions. That they will refuse to learn English.
You can go all the way back to Benjamin Franklin, back in 1751, prior to the American Revolution, and Franklin was already complaining how non-white (yes, the term has been remarkably malleable over the years) Germans, Swedes, and all sorts of other bilge of humanity were going to ruin America in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind":
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080
> And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
>
> Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
And for centuries, those alarming people rolled on in, and instead of collapsing, the US became wildly wealthy and powerful.
Happened with Catholics, the Italians, the Irish, Jews, the Polish, and on and on and on. Somehow, the imminent catastrophe that the other was going to cause never quite materialized.
Here's a cute political cartoon I like to drag up: “Who is to Blame”, from Judge magazine 1891
It was not frictionless, no. But it has persistently worked out.
You can find similar worried authors all through US history. It'd be fun to line up some modern-day equivalent -- I dunno, maybe Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization alongside other screeds -- take one about the Irish, say, and one about the Poles -- and put the texts side by side and actually do a Venn diagram showing how many of the concerns actually overlap versus how many differ from each era.
The especially good bit is that historically, a number of people who originally came to the American colonies were considered as something of flotsam. The American colonies were the destination for British penal transportation for longer than Australia was, not to mention all those religious radicals, or the piratical types operating out of Rhode Island. If there was one good, solid piece of evidence that societies weren't particularly good at identifying people whose progeny would surely lead to failure, the US has got to be it.
https://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312302592
I prefer: Non-fiction (Wide range)
Currently reading:
Intellectuals and Race, by Thomas Sowell.
Sure. I would argue that those stereotypes of sexual prowess and masculinity are very clear examples of how these standards can hurt men. I don't believe there is such a thing as 'perfect privilege' either. There is only more or less in relation to others.
Just like female beauty standards can keep all women, regardless of appearance, from experiencing their true potential in different ways, standards of masculinity inhibit men the same way.
Men are often robbed of emotional support by these unreasonable standards of masculinity. Just like women, men often feel deep, deep shame for not measuring up to these standards. Conversely, the men who do live up to these standards often live in fear of losing that status. This manifests as the stereotypical jock beating up the weak kid. It's the male analog to the thin girl who is constantly afraid of becoming fat.
Personally I think that's why so many male Redditors feel so angered by being called out for dog-piling inappropriate jokes and catcalling women in Reddit threads. They are essentially screaming "Don't you see? This is the only emotional outlet I have!" And they feel that to be true in a profound way.
I don't say that to make excuses for the behavior, but I can see it as an explantation for why so many otherwise decent guys do this.
Have you ever heard of RW Connell's theory of Multiple Masculinities? Like I said above, I'm not an expert, and I've only begun my reading on the subject, but her concept of varying types of masculine ideals makes a lot of sense to me.
here is her book
a jstor article
this looks like a good basic introduction
It's know as internalized sexism. Those who express it are female chauvinist pigs.
Couldn't possibly have been that the only time "the klu klux klan" was mentioned in the tapper interview occurred during crosstalk ^^primary ^^sources ^^op which might have made it difficult to hear that part. Which couldn't possibly be one of the things Trump mentions afterwards?
> I could hardly hear what he's saying. I hear various groups. I don't mind disavowing anyone. I disavowed Duke the day before at a major conference
The last part sort of raising the question as to why the media needs to keep asking him to disavow when he's already disavowed.
But of course, courting the racist vote, a staggering .2% of the GP is a good strategy, and that's why Trump's whistling at dogs all day, because by only dog whistling, nobody would pick up on it (what's the point of a dog whistle, amirite?) and therefore the majority of people who dislike racists and racism wouldn't be exposed to the idea that Trump is a racist.
An idea that couldn't possibly be lazily applied to every. republican. candidate. ever.?
Because, you know, every republican candidate is hitler.
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, This is my fetish. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
I have read a LOT of methods texts. I think that if you need a simple intro then you can't go wrong with Alan Bryman's Social Science Research: http://www.amazon.com/Social-Research-Methods-Alan-Bryman/dp/0199588058/ref=lp_B001ITTVK2_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1335069341&amp;sr=1-1
It really covers all of the basics in a clear and concise way that is accessible but detailed enough to be of use to researchers and postgrads as well.
I would recommend that you all read a set chapter each week/meeting and then discuss it when you meet. That makes you more of a facilitator and takes some of the pressure off as well as getting people to engage with the material more.
Death of the West is a fascinating read, if you haven't checked it out yet.
Well, racist people (or nationalists who see racism as tied to nationalism), see it as a race or nation dying off & dread that.
In the US, the birth rate of white people is low, in Germany I believe it's below replacement rate. Here in the US, we white folk will be outnumbered next generation, as Hispanics and others are having larger families then we are.
If you see cultural change as dangerous or scary, you're terrified by this.
Seriously, Pat wrote a whole book on this subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312302592
He's not entirely wrong in his basic thesis, this demographic shift is causing real issues... but mostly because of fear causing the outgoing top demographic's reactionary response... i.e. Brexit or Trump.
Given the nationalist & racist undertones going on in society within that movie, coupled with the exaggeration of low birth rate to zero birth rate, I very much saw the basic idea of this movie as highlighting these demographic fears.
In the movie, the only hope for humanity, was a scorned & imperiled 'other' in the form of a miraculously pregnant imegrent woman.
It is supposed to be from this book, I can't confirm that the statement is from Ehrlichman's interview with Baum, but this is the quoted source.
John Ehrlichman, during an interview with Dan Baum
http://www.amazon.com/Smoke-Mirrors-Drugs-Politics-Failure/dp/0316084468#
I knew the first laws criminalizing marijuana were race based - against Mexican migrant works - but to find out that the whole scheduling system was put into place to suppress Black folks - that's fucked up, if it's true.
https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728
Heads up : Author is black guy. World known intellectual. He owns multiple books about race, discrimination and economics. There is huge amount of numbers there gathered from last 60 years.
&#x200B;
> It’s like we have to do this once a week now. Y’all need to work on your memory recall.
You need to work on your attitude. Virtue signaling doesnt make your arguments more valid. In the end, if you really wanted to see larger picture, you could google numerous literature outside of feminist narrative.
When you are ready, please enlighten me and show me statistics for :
-income compared to whites
-family wealth compared to whites
-middle class status
-education
-life expectancy
Compared to black people in 2019 from your knowledge and perspective. I wait.
Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote an amazing book on this topic. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy
Sowell discusses the premise behind Vision of the Anointed
>Sowell presents a devastating critique of the mind-set behind the failed social policies of the past thirty years. Sowell sees what has happened during that time not as a series of isolated mistakes but as a logical consequence of a tainted vision whose defects have led to crises in education, crime, and family dynamics, and to other social pathologies. In this book, he describes how elites—the anointed—have replaced facts and rational thinking with rhetorical assertions, thereby altering the course of our social policy.
Also Intellectuals and Race
>Intellectuals and Race is a radical book in the original sense of one that goes to the root of the problem. The role of intellectuals in racial strife is explored in an international context that puts the American experience in a wholly new light.
>The views of individual intellectuals have spanned the spectrum, but the views of intellectuals as a whole have tended to cluster. Indeed, these views have clustered at one end of the spectrum in the early twentieth century and then clustered at the opposite end of the spectrum in the late twentieth century. Moreover, these radically different views of race in these two eras were held by intellectuals whose views on other issues were very similar in both eras.
>Intellectuals and Race is not, however, a book about history, even though it has much historical evidence, as well as demographic, geographic, economic and statistical evidence-- all of it directed toward testing the underlying assumptions about race that have prevailed at times among intellectuals in general, and especially intellectuals at the highest levels. Nor is this simply a theoretical exercise. The impact of intellectuals' ideas and crusades on the larger society, both past and present, is the ultimate concern. These ideas and crusades have ranged widely from racial theories of intelligence to eugenics to "social justice" and multiculturalism.
>In addition to in-depth examinations of these and other issues, Intellectuals and Race explores the incentives, the visions and the rationales that drive intellectuals at the highest levels to conclusions that have often turned out to be counterproductive and even disastrous, not only for particular racial or ethnic groups, but for societies as a whole.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465058728/?coliid=IV5OVDM0KKXN2&amp;colid=33OPSQMTB84F&amp;psc=0&amp;ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Enjoy, I did.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure I heard all these arguments first from a black law professor (Steven Carter ) and a black economist (Thomas Sowell). They are common views among those who have an economics-influenced worldview. (which is to say, more common among libertarians and conservatives than liberals)
To be more specific with regard to your bolded claim: in practice the intent to practice AA in colleges has had the effect of requiring Asian applicants to achieve much higher SAT scores than others in order to get admitted to the same set of colleges. When this has been noticed, the ideology seems to encourage covering it up or moving the mechanism which accomplishes it into harder-to-quantify areas.
I left off another argument, which is that AA helps already-privileged members of minority groups (who would have succeeded without it) while either failing to help or actively harming the less-privileged members of those same groups. That was the main thrust of Carter's book .
Of course, the body of ideas that constitute "AA" is ever-changing, just like the body of ideas that constitutes, say "communism". One can always claim some criticism doesn't apply to YOUR version of AA (or communism, or liberalism) and sometimes that is actually true, but more often it's a no-true-Scotsman effort. At its heart, AA policies are based on a set of premises about what is likely to be fair or effective or beneficial, and these premises are reasonably disputed by AA's critics.
(Side note: some of the past intellectual basis for AA used the concept of "stereotype threat", which has since been a casualty of the replication crisis.)
You've already had some good suggestions, which I'd suggest following. I have a BA in geography and even after school found these interesting reads.
Cultural and Historical Geography
Eratosthenes' "Geography"
The World of Gerard Mercator: The Mapmaker Who Revolutionized Geography
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
Race And Culture: A World View
Technical, GIS, Cartography
How to Lie with Maps
Thinking About GIS: Geographic Information System Planning for Managers
An Introduction to Geographical Information Systems
I know most of these won't be of much use with a BS degree, but gives you a good foundation for thinking geographically. For the more science aspects; a good understanding of physics, chemistry, and to a lesser extent biology, will really give you a leg up when starting out.
Ah, I study this literature. First, go read Matthew Gutmann's everything. Then, read all his articles, but especially 'Trafficking in Men' in Annual Review (1997).
Secondly, read a good part of RW Connell's Masculinities, which is theory heavy but very, very good.
More ethnographically focused work is [The Cassowary's Revenge] (http://www.amazon.com/Cassowarys-Revenge-Masculinity-Society-Sexuality/dp/0226819515/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1344394669&amp;sr=1-14&amp;keywords=masculinities) and Dwight MacDonald's work in Palestine. That should be enough for now
Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy
I'd recommend Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs. It's an interesting view of how women are objectifying each other in the way men used to/still do. I also really enjoyed The Beauty Myth.
Thanks for joining the feminist side =D
EDIT: Spelling
Two that I think are great without going back too far are Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, and Female Chauvinist Pigs.
I'm looking at amazon.com and thinking of ordering a new one from bell hooks, who I've always liked. As an African-American woman, hooks has always had a broader perspective.
I'd also recommend Susan Faludi's Backlash.
Amanda Marcotte's recent It's a Jungle Out There was a quick read and good.
I'm currently looking at Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism and by Siegel and Baumgardner's Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild, but they're about 4th and 5th on my current reading list and I can't yet say how I'd rate them.
Also on my reading list is Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (Point/Counterpoint) by Warren Farrell, Steven Svoboda, and James P. Sterba on my list. Looking forward to that one. Warren Farrell is a former feminist and the father of the men's liberation movement. The movement had progressive roots, but I think Farrell's moved more center, and certainly the men's movement has some very conservative branches. I think it will be interesting splitting apart any anti-feminism from the pro-men's liberation stuff.
I personally don't think there's any conflict between men and women's liberation, but I want to be more informed as to the current arguments.
Of course it's "logical" for women to buy into patriarchy - but it's only logical after one has accepted that this is the way things are and they cannot change.
>So why is it that when men hold a sexist ideology, their positions are attributed to a well established (and by many, respected) ideology, but when women analyze the same information, and come to the same conclusions, is it assumed that she's internalized this completely irrational ideology that supposedly belongs to men alone, as if she's somehow been brainwashed and manipulated?
This is confusing - I think feminists would say both have been equally socialized (they wouldn't say "brainwashed") to believe patriarchal constructs. Part of the confusion seems to be that you're using "rational" to mean "self-interested." A man buying into patriarchy is purely self-interested, right, because he's reaching for the highest status in his given society, accepting no limitations on that status. Women who buy in are also trying to achieve the highest status possible in their society, and in that way are self-interested, but the woman is accepting that there are limitations for her. She is trying to be the highest-status subordinate. From that wider perspective, she's not acting in self-interest if she does not challenge her ultimately subordinate status. That doesn't mean it's irrational, but it does make buying into the patriarchy as a man vs. as a woman inherently different, because a man's position in patriarchy is by definition different from a woman's.
I think you could go further, though, and argue that men buying into patriarchy are not actually truly acting in their own best interests, because as we all well know, patriarchy hurts men too. But it's different from internalized misogyny because it's still completely self-interested within the logic of the system - within the way patriarchy defines value - if not truly self-interested in the context of other (more organic?) systems of value.
Edit: There are also different ways of "buying into patriarchy." My discussion above has in mind women who accept and embrace a very traditional feminine role. But there are also women that are what Ariel Levy has called "female chauvinist pigs", who essentially adopt a sexist masculine persona in order to try to achieve higher status than women are generally allotted in patriarchy (since, again, in patriarchy masculine>feminine). Again, this is completely rational within the context of patriarchy, arguably even more "logical" (self-interested) than the traditional woman's strategy, but as Levy points out:
>There's just one thing: Even if you are a woman who achieves the ultimate and becomes like a man, you will still always be like a woman. And as long as womanhood is thought of as something to escape from, something less than manhood, you will be thought less of, too.
There are many more that exist, of course, but here are some of my favourites:
Bitchfest - A collection of essays from Bitch magazine
Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture by Ariel Levy
Men explain things to me - Rebecca Solnit
Backlash - Susan Faludi
Bad feminist by Roxane Gay - I'm just in the middle of reasing this now, really enjoying it.
>Hillary Clinton was the only person from a list of possible Presidential nominees with such a low approval rating as Trump - Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are closer to 50% than 30%, unlike Trump.
It's easy to be popular when you aren't in the public eye. democrats as a whole have a lower approval than trump, which is what matters now.
>There's something about the way that Trump talks and acts that puts off more Americans than are usually put off by Republican Presidents - there are a whole host of statistics showing that people find Trump to be very untrustworthy, etc.
I dislike repeating myself, please read and respond to what I actually say. To repeat, "and so are his democratic opponents. approval for everyone is down, clearly something more substantial than trump is at work."
>The tax cuts passed in part because that's one of the main Republican ideas that they all agree on. I'd say the ACA repeal could've happened under Pence, because he's more steeped in the nuances and negotiations of such bills than Trump.
In other words, "trump should resign because pence is better and I know this because I think pence is better". You are assuming the thing you are supposed to be trying to prove, please stop.
>Also, with Trump capable of attacking any bill that comes out, and thus turning his base, and thus, the Republican base, against the ideas, the Republicans have seemed far less willing to push for or compromise with Democrats on various issues. Less likely to agree with Democrats on basic facts, to pass bills like DACA which have an 80% approval rating among the people, etc.
Polling on issues like this is meaningless. People like DACA they also like the idea of deporting illegals and lower immigration. the population is schizophrenic, and there's no idea that can't poll 60+ percent support. Pointing this out proves nothing.
>The tax cuts had almost nothing to do with Trump -
The people involved thought differently, but I'm sure you know better than them, right?
>The book is gossipy, and lacks verifiability, but several news outlets have managed to get certain details, such as the idea that Trump had all his briefings cut down to one page, because he hated reading too much,
That, or he's a wharton MBA and MBAs are literally taught to do that sort of thing as standard practice. But why read basic management books when you can just assume something shity about trump, right?
>What do you feel are the Democratic attacks that are the most baseless and damaging towards Trump, that actually had an impact on policymaking?
Where to begin? You've not made a single, verifiable claim about policy anywhere in what you have said. Not one.
>They're playing a partisan role, partially, but I think that Trump himself has some characteristics that are upsetting many parts of the country, and the Democrats are simply playing on those characteristics more, now.
He has one characteristic, an R by his name. That's enough.
>Pence would never say stuff that divides the country, at least, not as much as Trump does.
Again, you can't just assume the thing you are trying to rpove.
>The fact is, Republican approval of the NFL plummeted, shortly after Trump's attacks on the anthem protesters. And the drop in viewership this year is a few points higher than usual.
No, this isn't a fact. the fact is that NFL ratings have been falling for years. Please don't just make shit up.
>Pence wouldn't attack private institutions like that, nor would he cause such a divide and rancor in the country, which only energizes his opponents, and makes it harder for the Democrats to compromise with him, without appeasing the demands of their base.
Why on earth would you assume this?
>I don't know any prominent Republican politician who has been credibly accused of being a racist.
Yes you do, every single one, without exception. If you truly don't see this, then you need to get your head out of the sand. Democrats accuse every republican of the slightest importance of being racist every chance they get. THAT is what has poisoned the well of public discourse, not trump. Trump is a consequence of the things you are accusing him of, not a cause.
Are you caring for your aging parents at your age?
I'm in my 50s caring for my mom in her 80s.
Good luck.
Phillip Marshall was a former CIA pilot that was murdered with his family for being a Truther, do you fear for your life?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bamboozle-War-Terror/dp/1468094580
http://www.infowars.com/cia-killed-phillip-marshall-for-leaking-911-secrets-dr-kevin-barrett/
sounds very familiar to what happened to this man
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bamboozle-War-Terror/dp/1468094580
There have been double standards when it comes to requiring the fbi to prove guilt, and a general unwillingness to extend the same level of skepticism extended to non-government conspiracy theories to theories forwarded by the police without evidence.
I'm not saying that this proves that anyone here is a shill. I don't want to throw around any specific accusations like that because it's impossible to tell and I know there are plenty of people here who are honest skeptics (though they may fall prey to double standards like I do sometimes).
However people here are accusing me of being a shill, and when i ask who would pay me to say what I'm saying as infowars wouldn't hire me because i'm a leftist and think alex jones is a double agent, i'm met with silence and downvotes.
And some of the same people that are accusing me of a being a shill are also accusing me of thinking other people are shills. This, despite never having leveled a specific accusation myself, and limiting my claim to /r/conspiracy at the time.
All of this centers around a post I made about shills being present in r/conspiracy and forwarding false conspiracy theories. That is, that there are shills in r/conspiracy responsible for a lot of the dumb theories r/conspiratard likes to make fun of, whose goal is to discredit conspiracy theory from within.
The particular claim I made was that "how" theories about 9/11 (controlled demolition w/ the probable exception of wtc7, lasers, mini-nukes, no-planes, etc.) were disinformation designed to distract from the who and why theories (some of the evidence for which is here), the primary one being that the cia and alqaeda have been working together.
Some people in r/conspiracy have no problem accepting that people on "their" side could be shills.
I think that if there are shills, they are playing on us-them divisions, and it's worked to play /r/conspiracy and /r/conspiratard against each other beautifully.
If there aren't, there are a lot of people using self-serving definitions of conspiracy theory to maintain a double standard with respect to what they are skeptical of.
I don't have much philosophical background, but one thing I'd like to point out is that the moral boundaries we set are absolutely tied to what is practical.
In an ideal world, we would let every living retain all their freedoms; they can do whatever they want and would never have to suffer. No person, cow, or bacterium would be killed. The problem is that certain rights that some living things have will hinder the rights of others. Until very recently in human history, we could not survive without eating other animals ^[source]. We also can't help but kill millions of bacteria left and right regardless of the choices we make, since the normal behavior of bacteria (multiply if you can) basically assumes that a good number of them will die. In fact, we can't really compute which of our actions would kill the least number of bacteria without devoting our own lives to this task.
Practicality manifests itself in more subtle ways in our ever-changing morality as well. Modern medicine would have never gotten a start without rather cruel experiments centuries ago. We now have machines that automate dangerous tasks (defusing bombs) or make them much safer (building tall things). For all of these kinds of tasks, the original way of doing things is now immoral or unethical simply because there is a much better way to do it.
If we somehow lost all our technology tomorrow, would we sit around and do nothing claiming that doing anything is unsafe? No, we would continue to build bridges in the old, dangerous fashion while we search for ways to make it safer in the future. Similarly, once we find a way to adequately teach biology and medical students anatomy without using real animals, dissecting live frogs will probably become unethical rather than standard practice.
If you believe in evolution, you believe that we gradually evolved from organisms similar to bacteria, and that there is no quantum jump at any point in evolution. This means that moral boundaries that we draw are inherently arbitrary and based on practical concerns. This doesn't mean that the lines we do draw are unnecessary or invalid. This just means that we should remind ourselves that everything we do is in context of our own perspective and our own current situation as a society. There is no absolute moral line that will stand the stand the test of time other than that living things should be allowed what they want as much as possible.
>But Homo Erectus we think is the first hominid that controlled fire which is about 1 million to 1.5 million years ago! And then people learned to make fire.
It's on my reading list. https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/1469298708
But here is one example from Ötzi - https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/world/europe/bolzano-italy-iceman-south-tyrol-museum-of-archaeology.html
>Then he left, fully provisioned with food, the embers of a fire preserved in maple leaf wrappings inside a birch-bark cylinder
This book is for a general audience, but check out Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by Richard Wranghum. His theories are controversial, but plausible in my non-expert opinion.
Humans did not eat exclusively raw food in nature. The consumption of cooked food makes the food 'easier' for our bodies to process. While the total nutritional volume is decreased slightly, this ease of processing results in a higher bio-availability of nutrients than by eating raw food. Put simply, we get more nutrients out of cooked food than raw food, even though raw food has more nutrients, because it is easier for our bodies to process.
This reduced the amount of time our ancestors had to spend foraging and grazing considerably. Our nearest ape cousins spend upwards of eight hours per day consuming food, because the lower bioavailibility of raw food means they have to keep eating and eating and eating to meet their bodies needs. Our ancestors using fire and cooking foods allowed us to reduce that time to between one and two hours, allowing us more time as a species for other pursuits. These include tool making, social interaction, the development of more complex languages, culture, trade and so on. There's a book you may want to read on the matter:
https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/1469298708
There are a couple of books that I think your library may have (or be able to get through interlibrary loan).
Nobody Passes,
Delusions of Gender,
She's Not the Man I Married.
The last book is the sequel to an earlier one, and is probably one that would speak most to what you seem to be asking in this post.
When I'm having a discussion about gender, one of the visual analogies I like to do is this (motions in italics, spoken is not italics):
(take a piece of paper, like 8½ x 11 or A1)
All humans have emotions and feelings and desires and hope and longings.
start tearing the paper into smaller squares
These pieces represent the feelings, hopes, desires and emotions we all have.
there should be one pile now
Each society and culture decides which of these human things is masculine and which is feminine
split the pile into 2 piles
One pile is for humans with penises, the other for humans with vaginas.
take 1-2 pieces from each pile and put them into the other
As long as one mostly conforms to society's idea of what belongs in each pile, a little difference is acceptable.
take a lot more than 1-2, but less than half from each pile and pop it into the other pile
But when too much of you is different from what society expects, you get called sissy, fag, dyke, queer, tomboy and other bad & cruel things. Bad enough that some people will attack and beat you for being different. Long before children know what sex is, they're beating each other for being too different while denouncing the victim as a fag or lezzie. And even as adults, the violence gets called things like "hate crime" and "gay bashing" and sometimes results in death.
now take almost all of it, more than half of each pile and toss them into the other pile
And sometimes, you get so far from what society expects that you get like this. Where you are convinced that you're in the wrong body. That's usually called "gender dysphoria*.
From there, there is usually a discussion with questions and answers, and it is OK for the answers to be "I don't know" or "I don't know yet".
I don't know if your SO was victimized in school, but that can make some folks think that they're really more of the wrong sex than they really are (as in they're really "just a sissy" and not "a woman trapped in a man's body"). This is grossly over-simplified, but I think it gives an idea of what a real therapist would be needed to identify. And please don't think I'm disparaging sissies, transgendered people or anyone in between.
It is normal for you to not be attracted if your SO transitions - because attraction and sexual identity is very important; and people rarely look into where it comes from and why. It isn't reasonable to say "well, it is still the same person inside" because it is extremely common to lose attraction (and become disgusted) when your partner gains large amounts of weight. It is still the same person inside, but the package is not what we're looking for. I'm sorry. You're sorry. We're all sorry.
TIL /u/bawkedybawk is the only other person in the sub wishing for this book! One day I will read it... seems almost a rite of passage lol.
There's a really good book called Nobody Passes. The basic idea is that ALL of us are trying to pass as something, and have fears about whether or not we're succeeding. Some of us are just attempting to pass on things that are more ... controversial, I suppose? I am not trans*, but I am a Lesbian married to a dude, I was raised Mormon, and I have always felt like I don't fit in anywhere. Reading the book was a great dose of solidarity for me, to know there were others out there who felt out of place.
http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Community-Background-Essential-Conservative/dp/1935191500
This book?
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan is a great place to start.
Here is a video introduction.
> bipedalism
Humans are not the only bipedal animal. Again, while this trait has helped us, it is not unique to us. In fact bipedalism predates humans within our own lineage and the first known hominin that was a least partially bipedal was Ardi who lived about 4.4 million years ago in Africa.
> opposable thumbs
Thousands of other species have opposable thumbs, this is a characteristics that defines the primate order. Several other non-primate mammal species also have opposable thumbs. "Most also have opposable thumbs and some have prehensile tails." While opposable thumbs certainly help us in the tool department - they aren't a unique trait to ourselves.
There are three main things that are unique to humans: shared intentionality, cumulative culture, and aspects of language. Thats it. Our intelligence is derived from shared intentionality and cumulative culture plus a couple of random physical traits that we were lucky enough to inherit from our distant ancestors - a big brain, bipedalism and opposable thumbs.
> cooking food - counts as technology, innovation like the manipulation of fire. similarly clothing is a type of technology
Evidence for the control of fire and cooking food date back about 350,000 to 1.2 million years ago...an early development in the Homo genus. Catching fire: how cooking made us human. By comparison, anatomically modern humans evolved about 200,000 years ago, and behaviourally modern humans evolved about 50,000 years ago.
So technically it is not unique to our species, but is kind of unique to our genus (however, there is a captive bonobo that learned to control fire and cook food from watching human videos). So really the ability isn't necessarily limited to humans or our genus...other species have the capability to learn it too...they just don't have the motivation to do so.
Well one obvious advantage to eating cooked rather than raw meat is that it vastly reduces parasite issues. Anyways, I haven't read the book but it's here:
Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human
It's not about Stonewall, but Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 explores a lot of interesting stuff most people don't know about. I took Chauncey's queer history class at Yale. It was amazing.
As for trans* stuff, I'd recommend a lot of theory. Judith Butler mainly. I'd also recommend Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity.
Of course you don’t see or feel the privilege. And this is absolutely no fault of your own. You’ve had it your whole life. To you it’s perfectly normal, expected, it’s the status quo and it is invisible to you.
I had this very discussion with my uncle-in-law a little while back. He couldn’t understand how people of color and people in poverty can’t live “the American Dream” simply by working hard (ie “pull yourself up by your bootstraps). He kept pointing out the challenges in his own upbringing and how he had overcome them “all on his own.” He just could not see how his upper middle class upbringing which included a working father and stay at home mom both of whom were college educated, four bedroom house in a good neighborhood, and private schooling with after school tutoring had afforded him a level of privilege not available to people in poverty.
So here is my challenge to you. Go and find a black man any black man and ask them about how they have experienced racism and discrimination in their own lives; ask him how he responds to being pulled over by a cop. Find a poor family of color using government assistance and ask them about how they are talked to by everyday people while they work two full time jobs and go without food to make sure their kids have dinner. Go and find a person who speaks with a Spanish accent and ask them how often they are told to “go back where they came from.” Go and find a woman working in the same position as you do and ask her what her salary is. Go and ask a woman what she does to protect herself when she has to go out alone at night.
Then ask yourself why YOU have never experienced those things. The answer is because you are a white male. Still don’t believe me. Then pull out a book and read. Here are some great books that will educate you to the condition of people of color:
These are just a few examples. There are Oh so many more. Before you discount the idea of privilege make sure you educate yourself about the condition of the people under your feet.
YOU may not be putting people down to pull yourself up, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t start higher up the ladder than they did.
I think you might appreciate this book: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1580056776/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XjDzCb2ZYMA9J
Any one who really wants straight talk backed with real data about illegal immigration crimes should read this book Adios America
On behalf of /r/the_donald I would like to welcome Ann Coulter!
Everyone, please give this wonderful lady the respect she deserves. No trolling, no snide remarks, no "progressive" morons trying to hijack the AMA with their anti-American agenda. Morons are not allowed to post here at /r/the_donald! Offenders will be banned.We would love for Ms. Coulter to return for more AMAs in the future. Make her feel welcome!Also, please check out her most recent book ¡Adios, America!. Some of Trump's rhetoric (i.e. "30 million illegals, not 11") are straight from the book.
EDIT: Ann Coulter has told us to not remove any more comments. From now until the end of the AMA morons are allowed to post here!
EDIT #2: I've modmailed /r/politics asking them to promote this, they offered it earlier today but we declined. Ann wants these people to show up. Welcome the liberal morons! This is their one and ONLY chance to post here without being banned!
EDIT #3: The /r/politics moderators offered a sticky. 15 minutes after I accepted it I asked for an update and was told that I can't expect them to get a link up in the snap of a finger. They have a LOW ENERGY moderator team!
EDIT #4: /r/politics has rescinded their offer to promote this AMA. They are not good to stand by their word. No wonder they lost their status as a default subreddit!
EDIT #5: Ann Coulter is done with this AMA!
I just read your book ["Adios America"] (http://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Ann-Coulter/dp/1621572676) and I wanted to say Thank You for writing this. It is really eye opening how our government is systematically lying to us regarding immigrants. Also Thank You for bring the topic of Immigration to the forefront of this election cycle.
P.S. Just ordered a signed copy of the book.
BTW, she wrote the playbook that Donald Trump used to win the election.
Here are a couple of readings on the topic that explain the problem:
The Crisis of American Lonliness
The Quest for Community
I'd say it's not an inherently leftist value at all, but the left definitely does a better job at mobilizing and implementing new urbanism ideas.
I've seen quite a bit of pushback against the neoconservative suburb-loving mainstream figures on the right, and lots of academics (such as writers at First Things, various authors at the Front Porch Republic and the signatories behind "Against the Dead Consensus") have worked to make the right more friendly to the conservative benefits that come from well planned cities.
Robert Nesbit is a great resource for this. He began as a leftist but eventually came to intellectual conservatism, specializing in human sociology. This is key.
His book "Quest for Community " argues that the rise of the powerful modern state has eroded the sources of community—the family, the neighborhood, the church, the guild. Alienation and loneliness inevitably resulted. One of his solutions to this alienation is for things simply be done on a human scale. Neighborhoods, streets, towns, all need to consider first and foremost the necessity of human connection and localism, and the goods that come from them. This could mean having wider sidewalks, taking the car out of the city, etc.
Same goes for Leon Krier. Began as a modernist with liberal tendencies and saw that a traditional urban setting was far more conducive to human flourishing than modernism or suburbia.
The list goes on and on. One of the key trends I've noticed amongst pro-New Urbanism individuals on the right is the split between conservatism and traditionalism. You are much more likely to find the oil money, suburb loving, trickle down/anti-urbanism economics amongst neoconservatives and other mainstream republicans.
Well anyways, here's a NRx reading list I'm slowly making my way through...
&#x200B;
Introduction
The Dark Enlightenment Defined*
The Dark Enlightenment Explained*
The Path to the Dark Enlightenment*
The Essence of the Dark Enlightenment*
An Introduction to Neoreaction*
Neoreaction for Dummies*
Reactionary Philosophy in a Nutshell*
The Dark Enlightenment – Nick Land*
The Neoreactionary Canon
The Cathedral Explained*
When Wish Replaces Thought Steven Goldberg *
Three Years of Hate – In Mala Fide***
****
The Decline
We are Doomed – John Derbyshire*
America Alone – Mark Steyn*
After America – Mark Steyn*
Death of the West – Pat Buchanan***
The Abolition of Britain – Peter Hitchens
****
Civil Society and Culture
Coming Apart – Charles Murray
Disuniting of America – Arthur Schlesinger
The Quest for Community – Robert Nisbet
Bowling Alone – Robert Putnam
Life at the Bottom – Theodore Dalrymple
Intellectuals and society – Thomas Sowell
****
Western Civilization
Civilization: The West and the Rest – Niall Ferguson
Culture Matters – Samuel Huntington
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization – Ricardo Duchesne
****
Moldbuggery
Mencius Moldbug is one of the more influential neoreactionaries. His blog, Unqualified Reservations, is required reading; if you have not read Moldbug, you do not understand modern politics or modern history. Start here for an overview of major concepts: Moldbuggery Condensed. Introduction to Moldbuggery has the Moldbug reading list. Start with Open Letter series, then simply go from the beginning.*
****
&#x200B;
Fyi I updated the previous post so you may wish to check it for updates.
In smaller societies, men are treated pretty fairly, at least as fairly as nature allows. More fairly than today, certainly. Men are more disposable than women, of course, but that's necessary. Strong, smart men lead, and other men may choose to follow. Liberty exists. It ain't perfect, but at least a man can determine his own path, at least he can choose to have a family and raise his children as he sees fits. At least he doesn't have to worry that his wife will leave him and take the kids, or that his kids will believe him a fool because they are indoctrinated by the educational system and the media, he won't have to worry nearly as much about a false rape accusation, or that his kids will be taken away by the government because CPS is corrupt, or that his money will be stolen by the government to be granted to the leeches of the world. When an injustice is committed against him, at least he has the opportunity to fight back with violence and perhaps see justice. At least the things he does have meaning. At least things are simpler, and he can see his enemies when they approach; they aren't hidden in government bureaucracy he is powerless to pierce.
For men, real men, that world is far more appealing than the modern world, where feminine sensibilities that cater to women and manginas rule, where apparent safety and comfort are what matters and life has little meaning, where the population is drugged to make them compliant and anti-depressants and Ritalin are used to keep the populace numb.
Which would you rather have, typhon?
I choose The Way of Men.
Yup, got some good ones for you:
Three Years of Hate: The Very Best of In Mala Fide: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Years-Hate-Very-ebook/dp/B00AWJVZXK
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan: http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-of-Men-ebook/dp/B007O0Y1ZE/
Here a good review of the Donovan: http://uncouthreflections.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/jack-donovans-the-way-of-men/
It's this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Research-Methods-Alan-Bryman/dp/0199588058
Supposedly from this book, but I can't verify:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199588058/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_asp_joyED.063DVJW
As a PS, this is what i mean when those experts are quacks. For example, here is a highly recommended textbook used in the social sciences. It's by Alan Bryman, who is, per the book review (4.6 out of 5 stars) " to Research Methods as Paganini to the violin". It contains a section "Feminism and qualitative research", which harbors such gems as:
It then lists some reasons:
https://imgoat.com/uploads/f39f8317fb/60050.jpg
And there you have it. Control variables --a fundamental of scientific research --are incompatible with feminism, because control variables are a masculine construct. But hey, the 'experts' in gender studies aren't quacks for eschewing empirical science in favor of ideology .... rather, I'm an extremist for dismissing them, because I question their integrity and commitment to reality and objective science. Smash the cis-hetero-patriarchy; fuck science.
It's the chief reason why I left the neo-con movement, minus the racism. More the cognitive dissonance by reducing BC and abortion services while cutting programs for poor children.
It's actually a GOOD THING the racist asshat is thinking this way. The neo-con anti-abortion stance had very little to do with religion, it had to do with racism.
See, in their minds the only people who use BC and abortion services are white college co-eds. "Darkies" don't use them to get more welfare babies.
So to keep the white population up, we need to ban BC and abortion.
This is seriously what they believe, Pat Buchanan wrote a book about it. http://www.amazon.com/The-Death-West-Populations-Civilization/dp/0312302592
This has been in the news for decades on a regular basis and is common knowledge at this point. This can't be the first time you have heard about changing demographics in Europe? If you're serious about learning more, then read Death of the West, it's heavily researched and full of citations to back them up.
Another good educational read for you:
https://www.amazon.com/Smoke-Mirrors-Drugs-Politics-Failure/dp/0316084468
Yep. There's an incredible book called Smoke and Mirrors that documents the drug war in excellent detail. It should be required reading for high school civics.
for those that need proof of what jareth says, read smoke and mirrors by dan baum.
basically, carter relaxed the enforcement nixon had put in place to persecute his enemies... but the reefer propaganda had taken hold, and when atlanta housewives saw their little jimmy smoking doobies, they freaked out... same as the old biddies during prohibition.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&amp;page=1
Is ABC reliable enough for you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
New York Times?
Or maybe you could just read the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
>This book was written in 2006, halfway through George W. Bush’s second term as president.
"Studies" like this have pre-determined conclusions.
George W. Bush wasn't conservative on issues that you should be conservative on, anyway. His tax cuts should've coincided with spending cuts. He expanded Medicare and sent out stimulus checks. He engaged in nation building. He was a progressive president - that's why he was a terrible president like Obama. Progressive presidents tend to be authoritarian. For example, FDR confiscated gold and re-valued it. FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court to force through his unconstitutional policies. Woodrow Wilson said he wouldn't take us into war but then did. LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam with no declaration of war. Nixon used a unilateral Executive Order to abandon Bretton-Woods.
Here's a quote from Amazon's editorial review of the book revenantae referenced:
Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers? Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes.
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
>They also assume that if we were taxed less that we would give more, which isn't necessarily the case, plus we already have charitable donations accounted for in our tax code.
To your first point, I'm reading a book on this right now, Who Really Cares?. It's fascinating and it basically says that, for people of a certain type (he posits religious people, I would argue it could be extended to married families in general), the less they are taxed the more they will give in charity.
What exactly do you mean by "we already have charitable donations accounted for in our tax code?" I assume you're referring to deductions here. The truth is they arent entirely accounted for at all...yes you're allowed to deduct upto 50% of your contribution base (look at 1(G)), and they don't give an incentive to donate per se, it just means that you can give the money to an organization that isn't the government.
The true question is, if there are organizations that can provide services more efficiently than the government (I completely agree with your last paragraph), why don't we let them, and then put the saved money towards other useful things?
>The point is you made an assertion that something is a myth without any evidence whatsoever.
It's based on my anecdotal experience. Like I said already, the original claim is not supported by any hard date either. To draw a comparison, there are no studies proving that unicorns don't exist, but you wouldn't criticize me for saying that they don't. Therefore, I feel no need to apologize for making a strong claim - in either case.
>that moreover others are propounding the contrary position (which like I said I've never heard before).
Here.
That is a very offensive thing to say. Political Ideology has absolutely nothing to do with that at all. If anything it is the other way around. People who Identify as conservative donate vast amounts of money to charity, much more then Liberals do.
after 2 minutes of a google search, here Educate yourself
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465008216/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon
>I'm saying Thai particular time racial prejudice in NYC was a major factor.
And I'm saying you need to have more of a reason than, "Because black murders weren't on the front page of the news paper there's racial injustice."
Would you please quit the personal attacks? The only thing you have to defend yourself are personal attacks at this point. I'm telling you that saying, "Because something happened to a white person and not a black person. Or because something happened to a black person and not a white person, that's racism." Isn't enough of a reason to call someone a racist. It's ridiculous. But it's really the only way liberals can keep up the facade of a racist culture and create an image of being a protector of minorities.
>First of all that's not the name of the book. It's "society" not "race."
Actually I'm talking about the book Intellectuals and Race. http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465058728
Some people agree and disagree with his work. Is it any wonder intellectuals take issue with him when he criticizes their culture and methods so heavily?
Hanging around /r/conspiracy does not imply that I should take theories at face value. I think that there are power structures designed to keep people in power, but I disagree that they're based on race, race division is nothing but another diversion tactic from those that are truly in power, to divide and conquer.
You've pointed me towards no proof or any reasonable indicator that black people are truly oppressed. Black people that have decided to transcend the culture that would bring them down have been successful, those that decide to blame others for their problems probably have not. It's really that simple. You can't argue inequality and oppression when black people have the same rights and can even rise to be president or attorney general, this is something that you have not addressed.
I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Race-Thomas-Sowell/product-reviews/0465058728/ref=cm_cr_dp_text?ie=UTF8&amp;showViewpoints=0&amp;sortBy=helpful#R3PI46WC1VDA6T
Sowell explains why cultural differences and not genetic or racial discrimination determine how certain minorities excel and others not so much.
I also recommend taking a look at the crime statistics coming from the USA census bureau and the FBI. They show that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crimes in proportion to their % of the overall population, this is something that many people don't get into their heads, the concept of representation.
> absent the necessary punishments of parasitism?
Are you claiming that this can only be provided by a State? Come on man, you're better than that.
>Your guys' political economy has no other explanation for why Africa is so low trust other than "they were brainwashed, man!"
I don't know which "guys" you are referring to, but I personally find the issue far more complex than that. In my opinion, there are environmental, cultural and ultimately genetic reasons why we Africans are so damn poor. We were not just "brainwashed, man".
Some people are born in areas where resources are more or less plentiful, this is not fair. That being said, some cultures or demographics make more babies who make more babies at rates which continue to ensure the limited resources available are certainly incapable of handling the population. Well what to do besides fuck if there is nothing to hunt, well their is war, political power, etc...Or their is entering the labor force through education and training. But it doesn't exist, ok import it, NOPE IMPERIALISM! rant off/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate
May I suggest Sowell for an interesting viewpoint on historical choices of individuals as they relate to their particular advantages or disadvantages within certain areas, types of legal framework, ethnic groups, and culture... https://www.amazon.com/Race-Culture-World-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465067972/ref=la_B000APQ7EI_1_17?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1495232293&amp;sr=1-17&amp;refinements=p_82%3AB000APQ7EI
Race and Culture is another good one.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Here is one of the go-to works that really got this conversation going a few years back. And it's not "unlikely" at all, in a linguistic sense, for labels--especially those that refer to really broad things imbued with social and political import--to be multivalent, to have different definitions for different individuals, or to just be really vaguely defined. For example, go ask a hundred people to talk for a few minutes about what "freedom" means to them, or "America," or "education," etc. Cultures (and certain groups in the culture) sometimes have a vested interest in restricting the definitions of various terms, and this masks their true variety. For instance, many people believe that there is only one definition of "American," and might become angry if you explain that there are various ways to define that term.
"Masculinity" is very much like the examples above. I think some examples will demonstrate:
All those examples are "masculine," and they don't all work together. You might say that some are more masculine than others. I'd say "prove it." I've met people who have very different core beliefs about what it is to be a man, or a "good man," or a "natural man," etc. (we can't even agree on that--what "masculine" actually refers to).
There is a concept sometimes called "hegemonic masculinity," and I think it refers to what many people sometimes call "traditional masculinity." It looks a lot like the Hispanic concept of machismo. It is not a nice way of being a man; it usually includes dominating others, constantly being prepared for violence, being sexually promiscuous to a pretty riduculous degree, etc. It's not called "traditional masculinity" as much in scholarly circles, I think, for a good reason: it's no more "traditional" than any other conceptualization of masculinity; in the (admittedly Western) cultures I have experience with, there have always been multiple masculinities. They vary by geographic region, social stratum, personality type, family background, religious expression, ethnic heritage, education level, and probably more stuff. In fact, I think masculinities even vary within individuals--we are a different kind of masculine (at least many of us) depending on the situation we are in, or the life tasks we're dealing with (e.g., finding a mate in our 20s versus raising children or building a career later).
So OP's question can't be answered as asked, because there is not one thing that is "masculinity."
Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs - ta da! Women are just as complicit as men are in propagating gender roles, though I don't agree with everything Levy argues.
Recent research studies have concluded that women have a alternative sense of sexuality compared to men. Women have been prevented from claiming their sexuality through acts such as sex. So they've begun to relate to their sexuality through feeling sexy. This is why women are so willing to participate in what many people would think are ridiculous- Girls Gone Wild is one example. They "look for nothing by 9s and 10s" and they get plenty of them for nothing more than a girls gone wild hat or shirt.
Whether the women are exploited or not, it is an interesting example of the differing sexuality between men and women.
sources
http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743249895
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018563
female chauvinist pigs is pretty good too. not too theoretical or deep but it captures modern american society pretty well.
Here's actual data on why I urge you to not screw up your relationship, if you are with a good man.
This book was published this year https://www.amazon.com/Girls-Sex-Navigating-Complicated-Landscape-ebook/dp/B0111YAT0Y
>They are considerably less likely, for instance, to receive oral sex in casual encounters, and when they do, it’s rarely to climax: only 17 percent of women reported orgasms in first hookups that included oral sex alone, as opposed to 60 percent whose most recent cunnilingus experience was in a relationship. (Men in hookups, incidentally, overestimate their partners’ orgasms by a third to a half.) In hookups involving intercourse, 40 percent of women said they’d come (half the rate of men who did), as opposed to three-quarters in serious relationships.
>Perhaps one could argue that it takes time for men to learn a female partner’s body and responses, but it also requires interest—and basic respect. Young men routinely express far less of both for hookup partners than for girlfriends or even “friends with benefits.”
Also based on this book from from 11 years ago, 70% of women having casual sex were not having orgasms https://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283
If you aren't satisfied with sex with your boyfriend, I can suggest some books to fix that too.
You're making me math?? Oh, you cruel fiend :)
This book + this dvd should be $22.21, if I didn't mess up my math :) .
In a nutshell, Ms. Levy asserts that women are at least partially to blame for the "raunch" culture -- women making other women and themselves sex objects.
If you are interested in learning more, here is a link from amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743284283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1347384465&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=female+chauvinist+pigs.
I would suggest you check it out from your local library.
> You are defending the Nazi event filled with Nazi's and Holocaust deniers.
The neo-Nazis came out way later in the evening. Did I oppose the removal of Robert E Lee’s statue by a bunch of butthurt Leftists who are in no-way affected by it? Absolutely. Not bc I’m fond of him as a historical figure but bc Lee was just the start. Nowadays, Leftists want to get rid of ANY statue, memorial, monument, namesake from Founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson bc they owned slaves at one point.
>Christian Picciolini, US author of Memoirs of a Skinhead and former neo-Nazi...
Oh honey, you think what he said/wrote is unique to Trump? As I’ve said many times before, this tactic of calling the sitting Republican president or presidential candidate (and/or their rhetoric) a Nazi, White Supremacist, KKK, racist, etc, is a tired old song.
Some poor loser wrote a whole academic paper on president Bush “white supremacist” rhetoric when he used the phrase “War on Terror” was just really a war on brown people. (1 2) and the same crap against John McCain (1 2 3) and even Mitt Romney, who was the mellowest candidate of the last 50 years (1).
So again, absolutely nothing of substance. Meanwhile, democrats continue to support racist policies like affirmative action and employment quotas which are disproportionately affecting Asians and Jews. But yeah, Trump bashing illegal immigrants of all races is worse 🤣.
You realize that there are assholes in both parties right? Or are you trying to argue that Liberals have the superior belief system, because no one in that group uses insulting nicknames? At least it's creative, as opposed to calling every leading Republican candidate of the past 30 years a racist...
http://www.amazon.com/Gook-John-McCains-Racism-Matters/dp/0967943345
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/mitt-romneys-shockingly-racist-acceptance-speech/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mike-myers-kanye-west-spoke-706420
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/11/noam-chomsky-ronald-reagan-was-an-extreme-racist/
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/the-modern-war-on-drugs-began-as-nixon-s-assault-on-blacks
No, I don't 'gotta respect McCain' just because he sometimes acts more dignified than the rest of his party. He is where he is because of his dad. He's shown himself to be racist again and again. That's why he didn't mind launching racially-coded attacks on Obama during the campaign.
"We never said McCain was a racist!
Yeah, about that:
https://www.amazon.com/Gook-John-McCains-Racism-Matters/dp/0967943345
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101102216.html?noredirect=on
https://www.thenation.com/article/john-mccain-racist/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/14/mccain-palin-obama-racism
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/01/campaign.wrap/
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Veiled-racism-seen-in-new-attacks-on-Obama-3266286.php
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg19-2008oct19-story.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2008/10/mccain_calls_obama_that_one_wh.html
We can do the same thing for senile if you like.
Sorry, I missed some of your points at the end.
>I'm sorry you think a vulgar t-shirt is the equivalent of a slogan adopted first by white supremacists and then decades later by Trump, but you're making a false equivalency here.
What slogan are you referring to? "Make America Great Again" is ripped of from Reagan's campaign slogan. Are you calling Reagan a racist now too? Can you cite any evidence that "white supremacists" first used the slogan?
Comparing a red hat to a KKK hood is a false equivalency.
> Take it from a gay man or a person of color: we see these hats as symbols of hate.
Can I ask why? Do you even personally know a Trump supporter, much less someone who owns one of these hates? Take it from a white straight man. I don't give a shit what your race or sexuality is.
>That's not because we just suddenly decided to hate Trump.
Oh yes it is. Trump was the first president in history to be in favor of same sex marriage, but you probably didn't even know that. Prior to 2015, he was pals with Hillary, and even donated to her Senate campaign with her famously attending his wedding. Then he challenged Democrat's power, and they told you to hate him. I don't fault you. The Dems are the best propagandists there are.
>Broadly speaking LGBT folks and black people (90+% of both groups) now refuse to vote for Republicans. You'lle this didn't happen with the Bush, McCain, or Reagan campaigns.
"This didn't happen with..." Lol, you're joking, right? They DID THE EXACT SAME THING WITH THEM. Kanye West went on national tv during a telethon to help Katrina victims and said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people". Bush is a Nazi. Bush is a war criminal. Bush hates gays. I grew up listening to all of that. I even believed a little of it at the time.
People having written books about how McCain was a terrible evil no good very bad racist in 2008...only to have Obama give a glowing eulogy about him a decade later.
Joe Biden said of Romney, that if elected, he'd put black people back in chains.
Reagan, too, as we're told by the left, was a vile racist who stoked fears of anti-white racism...because only a racist would care about racist directed at white people...
Democrats don't have any policies that sell well, so they use the same trick they've used for the last 50 years. They call everyone a racist, and then hope you fall for it.
There's literally entire books written on John McCain's racism.
Everybody should read Atul Gawande's Being Mortal.
I completely agree. There are two topics the whole:
>The most important part is not a conviction but staying alive.
thing reminds me of.
1 - Daniel Khaneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow discusses the differences between the experiencing self and the remembering self. Briefly, the way we experience an event is very (very) disconnected from the way we remember and event.
Prioritizing survival of rape suggests that the memory of rape is less painful than the experience of rape itself. Arguments to the contrary get into territory of suicide, which is just as hard to discuss as the topic of rape.
2 - Atul Gawande in his book Being Mortal talks a lot about people diagnosed with terminal illness. For some, the focus of their lives becomes less about survival and more about controlling the narrative of their story, and how they're remembered.
At the point of diagnosis, many people will opt for painful chemo/radiation even for an extremely slim chance of a few extra years/months. Others disregard treatment and focus on controlling the parts of their lives they value the most - friends, family, unfinished projects. The latter group understands they're possibly shortening their lives, but choose to do so in order to retain control of their life story.
>We can say -I'd do this or I'd do that, but we don't know.
You're 100% right. I have no real idea what I'd actually do in the situations this thread talks about. I know what I hope I'd do.
>Let's hope none of us ever find out!!
I concur!
I recently read the book "Being Mortal", and I highly recommend it. It's a look at the very flawed way in which we view dying, medical care, and other end of life concerns. It was a very good read.
https://www.amazon.com/Being-Mortal-Illness-Medicine-Matters/dp/1250081246
Article Former airline pilot and conspiracy theorist 'shot dead his two teenage children and his dog before turning the gun on himself'
Book The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror
Movie Unthinkable
DefiantDragon: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
https://twitter.com/thebigbamboozle#!/thebigbamboozle
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20130215
California Community Mourns Deaths Of Teenage Siblings
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Calif-community-mourns-deaths-of-teenage-siblings-4250045.php#ixzz2K2WezFxZ
"Sean Marshall, the teens' mother and Phillip Marshall's estranged wife, was traveling in Turkey at the time of the shootings, Callaway said. The sheriff's department notified her and she was expected back by late Sunday or early Monday, Hewitt said."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275258/Phillip-Marshall-Former-airline-pilot-conspiracy-theorist-shot-dead-teenage-children-dog-turning-gun-himself.html#axzz2KGbenrMx
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130204/A_NEWS/302040310
http://twitter.yfrog.com/nqv2lvcyyyejstnkddnowhcqz?sa=0
http://www.santabarbaraview.com/phillip-marshall-wrote-about-a-conspiracy-was-he-victim-of-one4254252/ (link scrubbed)
http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2013/02/911-researcher-found-dead-wrote-book-implicating-bush-administration-in-the-911-attacks-2439534.html
The "atheists aren't charitable" stereotype is grounded in some empirical truth, see: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters
Specifically, page 31, Chapter 2 onwards.
However, Buffet's and Gate's donations have probably moved the averages enough to compensate for generations of lower giving by secularists.
Race and Culture, by Thomas Sowell.
Now can we please move on?
> Can't stand his self righteous attitude.
As I said, it's a standard attitude among the wannabe alpha demographic. I don't generally read the manosphere on a regular basis, but occasionally one of them will say something vaguely interesting or intelligent. When they do, I just try to filter out the grunting and other bullshit, and get the actual information that they are offering.
As I also said in another topic, this sort of thing is pretty much a pure reaction to feminism. It's guys feeling threatened by women mobilising and becoming politically powerful, and thinking that they need a "me-too," movement in order to counter it. As a result, they have come up with a distorted Flanderisation of real masculinity to the same extent that feminism has done, where femininity is concerned. We've seen near-incoherent, ridiculous travesties like the one written by this idiot, for example.
The fact is religious people do more for others: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters
Why don't you point out to us the great works of missionary charity undertaken by atheists throughout the world that merit support?
Smoke and Mirrors. Read it.
Europe is able to have such a massive welfare state because we pay for their defense budgets. And destructive "fuck you, I'll do what I want" individualism is a result of the state. [Society is emergent, people cooperate to reach common goals without government and through the market] (http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Community-Background-Essential-Conservative/dp/1935191500/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1377371743&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+quest+for+community). [After the welfare state was expanded in the 60's, people could engage in destructive behavior that most people disproved of (out of wedlock pregnancy, divorce, promiscousnous, addiction) because that behavior was subsidized by the government] (http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-1950-1980-Anniversary/dp/0465042333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1377371787&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=losing+ground). Libertarians are the greatest friends of poor minorities. Even after desegregation, [the war on drugs] (http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431), [occupational licensing laws] (http://www.amazon.com/State-Against-Blacks-Walter-Williams/dp/0070703787/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1377371682&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=state+against+blacks), and the lack of school choice are institutional barriers that have kept minorities poor. [Public institutions have always been erected to take care of the poor, whether there is government involvement or not] (http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1377371988&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=david+beito).
Side note that didn't get addressed by Dr. Nerdlove- The LW's family was not a feminist family even though her mother was the breadwinner. An abusive relationship cannot be feminist in nature because abuse (from any party in a relationship) goes against the very heart of feminism.
There's some great research being done by academics in gender studies on toxic masculinity and if anyone is interested in some reading material, there are some great folks like R. W. Connell, Michael Kimmel, or Tony Porter that might be helpful.
Theoretically, yes, unless they're citizens. Don't hold your breath, though. Some sort of really, really, really super-duper serious misrepresentation had to have taken place during the asylum process for the US Immigration and Naturalization Service to send someone back to country they came from.
(Ann Coulter discusses immigration issues in her 2015 book, ¡Adios, America!)
Since r/atheism is big on evidence, proof, stats, numbers, science, facts, instead of just shooting someone down for pointing out an inconvenient truth, I'm sure that standard of objectivity means nobody will mind it being pointed out that this one record is quite unlikely to change the fact that Religious people give more (money AND time) to charities and humanitarian aid than the non-religious.