The Challenge, Unmet
Click for crash.
Pretty sure healthcare, wages, price of education, basic standard of living is are issues that affects women, lots of women, in fact even more women then the pro-choice ones. You your self even name said issues, great just name them UNIVERSALLY, not simply as issues for women but for EVERYONE, how Obama won was on unity and "hope" and "change" not "women first"
Demonstrate your "women first" fallacy.
The question arises↑ as to the difference between making a priority and answering the challenge.
You have exactly nothing to say on the subject↑, yet continue pushing the fallacy that responding to issues is somehow making them a priority.
No, seriously, your pretense of ignorance is part of your problem.
A Republican says employers should be able to disrupt a woman's healthcare, she says no, Democrats agree with her; how is that "women first"?
How is
equal rights "women first"?
Show us your liberalism, ElectricFetus:
Write an actual liberal political argument supporting what you advocate. Or are you just going to tell people to sit back and watch YouTube, instead?
You say health care; Republicans say exceptions, exclusions, and exemptions; you say, what, don't prioritize those? Okay, what does that mean? Don't address them? Because so far, it is impossible to tell the difference between addressing the issues put before us and prioritizing them unjustly as you would pretend.
Of course, that's largely because you're trying to posture yourself as a liberal on a right-wing vocabulary while demonstrating precisely no comprehension of American liberalism, or even basic American concepts like equality and justice.
As it is—
Economic issues are more important to uneducated women, suburban and rual white women care alot about how outsourcing has destroyed their local businesses that either they ran or their husbands ran, putting food in there children mouth. Abortion is not their biggest concern and to many of them it is evil anyways, campus rape is not their biggest concern because unlike bourgeois college girls, poorer women are MORE LIKELY TO BE RAPED and no one talks about it. Putting more priority on economic reform and supporting local candidates that that fit their wacko beliefs about jebus will get us more votes in the house and senate. Meanwhile the city bourgeois tumblr feminist will still have her local pro-choice black transsexual otherkin candidate to support. Heck we could even have a female president so long as she is Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard and her primary concern is fixing the economy first and foremost.
Let me put it simple for you, you have your progressive stack backwards, it is not class<race<gay<sex, it is class>race>gay>sex: class is the biggest issue, money is power, money is the means to doing anything, class covers the most people and is the issue that must be priority number 1.
—you have no clue what you're on about; you're just making shit up as you go.
Seriously, the statement that "poorer women are MORE LIKELY TO BE RAPED and no one talks about it", for instance, is absurd on at least two levels: (1) Yes, people talk about it, (2) you have yet to explain how answering the challenge is inappropriate prioritization. Reconcile those two points, for instance.
Meanwhile, talk hierarchies all you want, but you can't pretend below "class" doesn't affect the larger generalization of "class".
Sadly, there might be negotiable ground in your platform if only you were capable of addressing basic functional contrasts derived from the disparity between your fake economic justice and clasist subterfuge.
You make
Hillman's↱ point for her:
We live intersectional lives, and these issues must be addressed intersectionally. To separate class from gender, race, sexuality, and ability in fighting for economic justice is to create a fiction that economic injustice is only driven by one kind social injustice—the kind that able-bodied cishet white men experience.
That you must spin fiction—(
"... and no one talks about it")—in order to double back against yourself only reminds that this is a troll job; you're so busy
promoting right-wing narrative↗ in hope of inflicting suffering you can't be bothered to keep track of yourself. Your
quest for vengeance↗ and
obsession with breaking people↗ should either be taken seriously or not. If so, seek help; if not, quit trolling.
Your argument has nothing to do with the real politics of our society, ElectricFetus, and everything to do with you and how you see yourself, which actually is why you have nothing to say.
What your cheap troll job reflects is the underlying sense of disempowerment driving this discontent. And as with all such things, we cannot as a society deal with it until it discomfits white men; and as with all such things, the only acceptable solutions attend discomfited white men—anything else, the rhetoric goes, is unwelcome identity politic.
Your lack of comprehension about liberal political argument is evident; the tales you spin in lieu of argument come straight out of a right-wing fever swamp. But you make a good spokesman for Appeasement insmuch as you demonstrate the futility of giving over to prejudice and bullying.
A rising tide cannot lift sabotaged boats; your politic reflects a familiar advocacy on behalf of the saboteurs.
As Traister noted, Democrats go through the question of sacrificing women at the altar of appeasement over and over and over again. And this, as
Iceaura↑ reminds, is their reward for attending that sacrifice.
Here is something you can't answer:
What do we do about sincere beliefs in fiction?
Nobody really knows how to accommodate certain bigoted fears. But think of it this way: The conservative argument can say that gays started the Gay Fray by wanting to see their kids. Queers, by contrast, argue conservatives set it off because there really wasn't much going on with the movement aside from trying to survive a plague at a time when Christianist groups freaked out over family court and payroll dispute resolutions that did not discriminate against homosexuals for being gay, and responded with
ballot measures seeking to
amend state constitutions in order to
institute discrimination.
All liberals did was say no. That made conservatives uncomfortable. Made a winning political majority feel persecuted. All anyone had to do was disagree with them. Do you understand that through the nineties it wasn't gays putting the issue at the fore, but conservatives? Hey, all Lawrence and Garner won in Texas was the right to not be arrested for being gay. The
thirty-four subsequent marriage votes? Those are on Christianists and conservatives; the 2012 election? Three of those are on states that said to be done with the issue; one of those is on Christianists who got greedy, and thereby set their own downfall in motion.
So, yeah. Twenty years worth of elections; that's what you call "the drop of a hat".
How about forty years worth of elections? Again, "the drop of a hat".
How many years of police taking it out on black people? The drop of a fear of a black hat, or something, maybe?
Liberals might never have figured a solution, but neither can they admit the possibility of dealing with broad-scale antisocial behavioral disorder; that is to say, there is only so much one can communicate with those who refuse communication. But we've been 'round this mulberry bush far too many times, already: Conservative picks a fight; conservative loses fight; conservative complains about liberals picking a fight.
Liberals didn't set up
"the rape thing"↗; nobody had to rush human rights to the fore as a liberal identity politic, we already had Republicans demanding discussion of such issues. Remember, part of how that came about was Limbaugh trying to rally conservatives by slut-shaming women who use
birth control, and Mitt Romney's inability to answer whether or not an employer should be allowed to disrupt a woman's health care, which in turn was a conservative advocacy.
Over and over again this happens: Bully picks fight, someone stands up to bully, bully cries that someone picked a fight.
As your would-be argument folds in on itself, remember that you're not new; most of us have been through this before, and that's why nobody believes your poorly-excuted poseur routine.
