Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Why? Because we get raised without being prepared to be a proper person and learn how to properly do "emotional housework" (as the thread puts it). It sets up men for failed relationships, the emergence of deep character flaws, and a poor sense of what consequences for your actions really means. In other words, it actively teaches them to be their worst selves.
The thing is, though, it kinda rewards them for it. Pats on the back from your bros, cushy Wall Street/Silicon Valley/etc. positions, possibly a seat on the Supreme Court...
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Sep 28th 2018 at 8:11:45 AM
i'm tired, my friendI don't think they were disputing this, just that there are ways that patriarchy hurts men.
Also, I will point out that you're describing a specific subcategory of powerful men, per-capita most men do not experience these benefits. Now I'm not saying that Patriarchy doesn't unfairly benefit men as a demographic just that's not exactly equitable, especially when you factor in the ways it limits them.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
More important it benefict goes with the catch up of allways follwing the rules, rules that come in a handy way to make men dosent stand for other men in what it matters.
I mean, sure men can be solidary against women and other stuff, but when it come other men? you are really fuck and most of the time you help them to fuck you.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Once, I didn't understand the downsides that come with the patriarchy and male conformity. Then I read a guy's comment on a Cracked article that alluded being male to being in a Gilded Cage, and it all clicked.
Do not obey in advance.A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael Mac Cracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly four degree Celsius or seven degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming, the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
World leaders have pledged to keep the world from warming more than two degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels, and agreed to try to keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But the current greenhouse gas cuts pledged under the 2015 Paris climate agreement are not steep enough to meet either goal. Scientists predict a four degree Celsius rise by the century’s end if countries take no meaningful actions to curb their carbon output.
Trump has vowed to exit the Paris accord and called climate change a hoax. In the past two months, the White House has pushed to dismantle nearly half a dozen major rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, deregulatory moves intended to save companies hundreds of millions of dollars.
If enacted, the administration’s proposals would give new life to aging coal plants; allow oil and gas operations to release more methane into the atmosphere; and prevent new curbs on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air-conditioning units. The vehicle rule alone would put 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions, according to the government’s own analysis.
Administration estimates acknowledge that the policies would release far more greenhouse gas emissions from America’s energy and transportation sectors than otherwise would have been allowed.
The statement is the latest evidence of deep contradictions in the Trump administration’s approach to climate change.
Despite Trump’s skepticism, federal agencies conducting scientific research have often reaffirmed that humans are causing climate change, including in a major 2017 report that found “no convincing alternative explanation.” In one internal White House memo, officials wondered whether it would be best to simply “ignore” such analyses.
In this context, the draft environmental impact statement from NHTSA — which simultaneously outlines a scenario for very extreme climate change, and yet offers it to support an environmental rollback — is simply the latest apparent inconsistency.
David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified against Trump’s freeze of car mileage standard Monday in Fresno, Calif., said his organization is prepared to use the administration’s own numbers to challenge their regulatory rollbacks. He noted that NHTSA document projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million to 789 ppm by 2100.
“I was shocked when I saw it,” Pettit said in a phone interview. “These are their numbers. They aren’t our numbers.”
Conservatives who condemned President Barack Obama’s climate initiatives as regulatory overreach have defended the Trump administration’s approach, calling it a more reasonable course.
Obama’s climate policies were costly to industry and yet “mostly symbolic,” because they would have made barely a dent in global carbon dioxide emissions, said Heritage Foundation research fellow Nick Loris, adding: “Frivolous is a good way to describe it.”
NHTSA commissioned ICF International Inc., a consulting firm based in Fairfax, Va., to help prepare the impact statement. An agency spokeswoman said the Environmental Protection Agency “and NHTSA welcome comments on all aspects of the environmental analysis” but declined to provide additional information about the agency’s long-term temperature forecast.
Federal agencies typically do not include century-long climate projections in their environmental impact statements. Instead, they tend to assess a regulation’s impact during the life of the program — the years a coal plant would run, for example, or the amount of time certain vehicles would be on the road.
Conservatives who condemned President Barack Obama’s climate initiatives as regulatory overreach have defended the Trump administration’s approach, calling it a more reasonable course.
Obama’s climate policies were costly to industry and yet “mostly symbolic,” because they would have made barely a dent in global carbon dioxide emissions, said Heritage Foundation research fellow Nick Loris, adding: “Frivolous is a good way to describe it.”
NHTSA commissioned ICF International Inc., a consulting firm based in Fairfax, Va., to help prepare the impact statement. An agency spokeswoman said the Environmental Protection Agency “and NHTSA welcome comments on all aspects of the environmental analysis” but declined to provide additional information about the agency’s long-term temperature forecast.
Federal agencies typically do not include century-long climate projections in their environmental impact statements. Instead, they tend to assess a regulation’s impact during the life of the program — the years a coal plant would run, for example, or the amount of time certain vehicles would be on the road.
Federal and independent research — including projections included in last month’s analysis of the revised fuel-efficiency standards — echoes that theme. The environmental impact statement cites “evidence of climate-induced changes,” such as more frequent droughts, floods, severe storms and heat waves, and estimates that seas could rise nearly three feet globally by 2100 if the world does not decrease its carbon output.
Two articles published in the journal Science since late July — both co-authored by federal scientists — predicted that the global landscape could be transformed “without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” and declared that soaring temperatures worldwide bore humans’ “fingerprint.”
“With this administration, it’s almost as if this science is happening in another galaxy,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate and energy program. “That feedback isn’t informing the policy.”
Administration officials say they take federal scientific findings into account when crafting energy policy — along with their interpretation of the law and Trump’s agenda. The EPA’s acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, has been among the Trump officials who have noted that U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants have fallen over time.
But the debate comes after a troubling summer of devastating wildfires, record-breaking heat and a catastrophic hurricane — each of which, federal scientists say, signals a warming world.
Some Democratic elected officials, such as Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, said Americans are starting to recognize these events as evidence of climate change. On Feb. 25, Inslee met privately with several Cabinet officials, including then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt, and Western state governors. Inslee accused them of engaging in “morally reprehensible” behavior that threatened his children and grandchildren, according to four meeting participants, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details of the private conversation.
In an interview, Inslee said that the ash from wildfires that covered Washington residents’ car hoods this summer, and the acrid smoke that filled their air, has made more voters of both parties grasp the real-world implications of climate change.
“There is anger in my state about the administration’s failure to protect us,” he said. “When you taste it on your tongue, it’s a reality.”
It's interesting how they're both the ones to go Think of the Children! while also going "world's fucked but none of us will be around for it anyway."
I mean, the hypocrisy isn't really surprising, but still.
Edited by LSBK on Sep 28th 2018 at 10:00:30 AM
The downsides for men of the patriarchy are the fact that they are expected to:
- Not let women work and provide for the family
- Be a "success" financially or not be a real man
- Not be caretakers for children
- Marry and/or have lots of sex as your virility is a score that determines your worth as a man.
- Be angry all the time and quick to use violence
- Police their daughters, sisters, and wives sexuality.
- Constantly forward violence as a solution or be perceived as weak
- Have "manly" interests
- Be emotionally invulnerable
- Control your spouse and maintain emotional distance from her.
- Be confrontational to other men about every perceived slight.
- Establish a pack hierarchy where you are constantly determining who is on top.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 28th 2018 at 8:02:26 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Relatedly there's a political ad that's highly apropos to the current situation.
(Also I'm happy to say that I've registered to vote, or rather re-registered in that my address changed since 2016)
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 28th 2018 at 11:03:24 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangBefore race support for Trump is strongly linked to age, baby boomers through their support of Trump and Republicans as a whole are making the world a worse place for all of us and due to their age will never experience the harm they're causing.
That video is completely fair and accurate.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangEvery time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart.
From a facebook political group, here's one major theory as to why they really want Kavanaugh confirmed.
Notably that ruling also requires them to significantly expand the scope of the ruling, because what's at stake here is someone who was tried and convicted twice on the same charge. Thus the more limited answer would only restrict doubly penalising the criminal, not this strange introductions of pardons and different crimes.
As that thread put it so succinctly, the problem with a system that says "boys will be boys" is that it leads to adult men staying boys. It doesn't encourage them to grow up. Conversely, girls have to become women far too quickly to survive in the system. I remember reading about one disturbing anecdote from a woman about how her daughter had to deal with a boy in her class (making things more awkward he was the son of a family friend) demanding a hug from her. These kids were in fifth grade. It's sobering to realize that there are preteen girls who have to learn how to deal with these situations. While "boys will be boys".
We've got to stop saying "boys will be boys". Otherwise we'll get more boys growing up to be entitled scumbags like Kavanaugh.
Disgusted, but not surprised

So, I'm late to this, but that patriarchy twitter thread also kind of reminded me of something important: women have always been the ones who suffer the most from this system, there's no denying that. But in its own way, it is also a gross disservice to men.
Why? Because we get raised without being prepared to be a proper person and learn how to properly do "emotional housework" (as the thread puts it). It sets up men for failed relationships, the emergence of deep character flaws, and a poor sense of what consequences for your actions really means. In other words, it actively teaches them to be their worst selves. A lot of the problems I've had and horrible things that I've done in my life are not the result of malice, but not being properly raised to deal with my emotional problems and to know when to prioritize other people over myself.
Once I became aware of the fact that most women have a story about being harassed or worse, and most of the women they knew had one too, it was deeply sobering and I really had to think about what I was doing and how to move forward with that knowledge.
That's why the Kavanaugh situation is so repulsive to me. I wouldn't make any excuses for him regardless of the circumstances, but Ford's account is as cut and dry as it gets. There was no misunderstanding, no misreading of social cues, nothing that could even faintly be construed as an explanation for why he did what he did. It was an act of deliberate malice. And it's pretty clear from the way he carries himself that he still has the same weak, entitled character that he did back then. He should have been in prison years ago.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Sep 28th 2018 at 6:39:45 AM