Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TerraPrime

  • Rank
    Owner of A Ravenous Parting of Unspeakable Sins

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Middle of Illinois, USA

Previous Fields

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

11,976 profile views
  1. US Politics: Ask Fox News

    Slightly different snake oil. Pence is for the bread-and-butter conservatism, where women can't have abortions, gays are seen as icky, and we allocate resources to businesses. That's different from Trump's brand of ideology, which is that Trump is the Greatest, he always wins, and brown people are icky.
  2. U.S. Politics: Russian Around

    Well, sometimes stating the obvious is necessary. Yeah, that sounds great. How do we get to that point?
  3. U.S. Politics: Russian Around

    I concur. And as far as I know, so did most of Asia. Like the metric system, the U.S. is rather alone in holding on to something ineffective and terrible instead of switching to a better model.
  4. U.S. Politics: Russian Around

    So, what is the path forward? Is America so unique that we just have to go back to a system where tens of millions go without healthcare and each family worry about bankruptcy every time someone falls seriously ill?
  5. U.S. Politics: Russian Around

    Yes, glad you agreed.
  6. U.S. Politics: Russian Around

    I'd quibble that for most of us, we pay more in premium than the value of care we receive. So, when I get sick, you're not paying for my care - I did, through my previous years of premium. The balance shifts if I use more health care services than what my premium covers in value. At that point, my healthcare is paid for by contribution from others. In other words, if I break my leg and need to have my bones screwed back together, that's probably not going to cost more than what I paid for. On the other hand, if I get type C hepatitis and end up with complications from viral sirrhosis and need a liver transplant, then yes, the amount I contribute through my premium is not going to cover all of it.
  7. But when people root their definition of "healthy family structure" in the models of 50 years ago, that's exactly where those problematic ideas of "healthy family" existed. In the 1930s, state fairs across this country held "most fit families" competitions and they inevitably chose the blond hair blue eyed families as the most wholesome. That type of idea didn't die with WW2, you know. So yeah, if people start with saying that things were great 50 years ago I am going to interpret that as endorsement of a whole suite of social issues associated with the 50s and 60s. Yes. I agree that stability is a more determinant factor than the gender of primary caregivers. Yeah, I never liked the Catholics and their forced head-coverings either. Also, the Jews and their kippahs - what's up with that? The Mennonites around here all travel in packs only and all their women wear head coverings, too. It's all so very threatening. When will we ban immigration of Mennonites?
  8. LBGTQ - 4 out of 5 cats prefer lesbians

    He probably Googled it after the meeting lol. But mad props for sharing the truth of your identity. :-)
  9. So, you're saying that the devaluing of family and marriage led to boys suffering from a lack of role models, which then gets them into troubles. But you're not saying that before the devaluing occurred, things were better. Because it's not better to not get into trouble... ? It's good to get into trouble? I guess? Because the ideology that maintains the "perfect nucleus family" which you're fondly not-remembering is the same that marginalizes PoC and LBGTQ people. You can't have the type of booming economy as the 20s without exploiting labor.
  10. Oddly enough, 30 to 40 years ago, life for PoC, LBGTQ, and all sorts of minority members were almost universally worse. When I hear "things were better 30 to 40 years ago," I can't help ask: "better for whom"?
  11. US Politics: Lock Him Up!

    Did I read correctly that Trey Goudy is saying Trump's claim of being wiretapped is unfounded? Yes, yes I did. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-wiretap-obama-trey-gowdy-235713
  12. Huh? Simon is saying, I think, that as a result of his own background, if he were to tell members of various minority groups to just "get past" the fact that Simon has come from a background of relative privileges in certain areas would be missing the point of privilege.
  13. I think there is a path to address the real and genuine problems that men in our society face, as a consequence of being men, without detracting from the energy and efforts to make things better for women. I don't believe it has to be a zero-sum game. I think the two movements are synergistic, not antagonistic. Sadly, so far, the men's right movement has repeatedly failed to offer a model I can support. From the mythopoetics to to the meninists, from Iron John to Lost Boys, they are drowning in reactionary anti-feminism. Time and again, I see groups that correctly identified the symptoms of the problems, only to attribute it to the wrong root cause, and then proceed to produce solutions that I can neither agree nor endorse. So far, I find more positive space for being men among feminists than I do among men's rights movement.
  14. Clearly, least to me, the problems I identified indicate that the traditional gender norm of stoicism is NOT serving all men. I look at events like the sad/rabid puppies, the gamergate, and the energetically reactionary misogyny against feminists from the young male crowd group and all I see is the frustration and anger at their own failure of living up to the ideals they have bought into. The narrative of "alphas and betas" turn that anger towards other men, by establishing control through domination, while the "involuntary celibacy" framework channels that frustration against women. These are all signs to me that traditional male gender standards are failing large swaths of men. Can some men be in that traditional gender role and be okay? Yes, of course. Some people can live with just one kidney, too, and it doesn't mean that that should be the norm we aim for. And, honestly, if you're really about "not painting everyone with the same brush," perhaps you should not use disparaging language when describing paths that deviate from the traditional options. If the idea is to promote the notion of "there are many ways to be a 'man'" then belittling things like seeking counseling and emotional support is exactly the counter to that idea. That's like me saying we should welcome different clothing options for men but we don't all need to become sissies by wearing a dress.
  15. Why is this a men's right issue? Because this seems like an issue about women and men's control of women, and not, you know, about men. This is the type of thing that turns off a lot of people to men's issues, because it so often derails into discussion on how best to control women. But to answer: no, I don't see a problem in terms of the red herring that is physical strength. I do think we need to do better in preventing sexual assault and rape in the armed services, but that's regardless of whether we "allow" women to serve in active combat roles, or not. And if you're thinking about women is more important to society because they can bear children, you should probably not say that in public.