Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[squirrelp]

The Daily Dot - Wikipedia

Just because your links are all conspiracy theorist nonsense doesn't mean everyone's else is.

That didn't answer my question

 

[8den]

That didn't answer my question

the daily dot is precisely the kind of tech blog to ask detailed insighful questions about wikileaks. Hence why other news organistions credit their reporting. Unlike say with RT.

 

[squirrelp]

the daily dot is precisely the kind of tech blog to ask detailed insighful questions about wikileaks. Hence why other news organistions credit their reporting. Unlike say with RT.

The daily dot is claiming that they have an email leaked from court documents. My question was, what is this court case? I haven't found this information, nor have I found a press release from wikileaks on the matter

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Unfortunately it appears that she colluded to trash those that Bill was involved with. That's pretty bad for someone that fronts herself in looking after female rights.

That does not excuse Trump though. The guy is an out-and-out misogynist.

Interesting commentary:

Weathering a “Bill Clinton” in one’s life for 44 years requires a level of fortitude that the average mere mortal cannot reckon. They find it weird. Furthermore, many feminists will take a dim view of women who choose to stay. This is what makes Trump’s pre-debate stunt last night so bleakly damning. Hillary Clinton, like all women, cannot win in the face of male infidelity. If the wife stays she’s a doormat, or a schemer, or a Lady Macbeth egging on his wicked behaviour. Yet if she leaves and files for divorce she’s a gold-digger, wrecking a good family over her shallow pride and trying to ruin a good man via the courts. Let’s be honest: whichever way Hillary Clinton had jumped in the Nineties, she would still be seen now through the prism of a man’s penis, White House or no.

Last year Hillary Clinton was asked what she would say to Broaddrick, Willey and Jones and replied, “Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” Hillary Clinton has no doubt lived with the minute details of these women’s allegations for decades and is highly aware that any public reaction she has will be deemed wrong.

She cannot be defensive, flippant, heartless, non-sisterly, angry, wounded, sympathetic or sorry on her husband’s behalf as this would hint at culpability. She can neither talk coherently on the matter nor bat it away. Trump produced those women last night safe in the knowledge that Clinton could not say anything at all.

Hillary Clinton, like all women, cannot win in the face of male infidelity

 

[bimble]

This is an interesting take on how misogyny intersects with the degree to which HC is reviled by many. It tries to show that there's no other solid explanation for the disproportionate hatred that she's on the receiving end of, and the tone of it, given that - as a politician - she's not really anything out of the ordinary.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...t-president-deeply-reviled-why-hating-hillary

 

[J Ed]

This is an interesting take on how misogyny intersects with the degree to which HC is reviled by many. It tries to show that there's no other solid explanation for the disproportionate hatred that she's on the receiving end of, and the tone of it, given that - as a politician - she's not really anything out of the ordinary.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...t-president-deeply-reviled-why-hating-hillary

Berta Cáceres, Honduran misogynist activist

 

[8den]

What is this court case? I can't find a mainstream source covering this story which isn't anything than a copy of the dailydot article, which respectfully is a website I know nothing about


.

You can't find anything on Chelsea Manning?

 

[J Ed]

Single payer healthcare is sexist too

 

[eoin_k]

... as a politician - she's not really anything out of the ordinary.

Faint praise indeed

 

[Treacle Toes]

You can't find anything on Chelsea Manning?

Why are you asking yourself questions?

 

[bimble]

Single payer healthcare is sexist too

Nobody is suggesting that every criticism of HC is to do with her being female
The article was just saying that you have to include this as a factor if you want to understand the vehemence of loathing directed at her and how its expressed. Also the unprecedented gender divide in how men & women say they're going to vote.

 

[8den]

Why are you asking yourself questions?

Added wrong quote to the response.

 

[Lurdan]

Berta Cáceres, Honduran misogynist activist

Freudian slip ??

 

[J Ed]

Nobody is suggesting that every criticism of HC is to do with her being female
The article was just saying that you have to include this as a factor if you want to understand the vehemence of loathing directed at her and how its expressed. Also the unprecedented gender divide in how men & women say they're going to vote.

They aren't explicitly saying it just implying it very heavily to the extent that they can plausibly deny it.

 

[J Ed]

From the magazine wot backed Suharto, back the neoliberal warmonger unconditionally or you are a sexist. Then read this hot new article about how uber Saudi Arabia is the future of the service industry!

 

[frogwoman]

The economist recently ran a piece advocating restricted legalisation of fgm

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The economist recently ran a piece advocating restricted legalisation of fgm

wtf?

Shame about the source, because the point about sexism is a valid one. We have the absurd and hateful situation where a woman is being held responsible for her husband's affairs. Whatever you think of Clinton, that's not an acceptable way to attack her.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

The economist recently ran a piece advocating restricted legalisation of fgm

Reached my article limit the other day.

 

[frogwoman]

wtf?

Shame about the source, because the point about sexism is a valid one. We have the absurd and hateful situation where a woman is being held responsible for her husband's affairs. Whatever you think of Clinton, that's not an acceptable way to attack her.

Tbh i do agree that misogyny does account for much of the reason that some people dislike hillary especially to that degree of intensity, but the economist is a shitty source to use if you're looking for feminist liberation.

 

[frogwoman]

Reached my article limit the other day.

I will try and have a look for you later, im on a £10 trial and cant be arsed to find the original source and remember my password, but the guardian ran a letter from a bunch of health professionals condemning it.

 

[Orang Utan]

I will try and have a look for you later, im on a £10 trial and cant be arsed to find the original source and remember my password, but the guardian ran a letter from a bunch of health professionals condemning it.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...e-barbaric-practice-it-continues-time-try-new
OF ALL the ways in which women and girls are made to suffer because of their sex, infibulation is perhaps the worst. Each year 400,000 are subjected to this atrocity in which the external genitals are excised and the vagina stitched almost completely closed (seearticle). More than 4m undergo some form of female genital mutilation (FGM) each year—a range of practices, from infibulation at one end, through incisions or pricks that hurt but cause no lasting damage, to the merely symbolic, such as rubbing the genitals with herbs.
For three decades campaigners, led by the UN, have tried to end all FGM. They have pushed for bans and prosecutions; trained medical practitioners to refuse requests for it; lobbied religious leaders to oppose it (though FGM is not mentioned in the Koran, many Muslims regard it as part of their faith); and tried to persuade parents of its dangers. They have had some success. Between 1985 and 2015 the countries where FGM is most common saw the share of girls cut fall from 51% to 37%.

There are good arguments for a blanket ban on FGM. One is that medical procedures with no possible benefit are unethical—especially when inflicted without consent, on children. Another is revulsion at FGM’s misogynist roots: the motive is generally to cleanse the girl of some supposed impurity and tame her sexual desires, thus ensuring her virginity until marriage and fidelity thereafter.

But progress has been slow, especially in the African countries where the worst forms are common. On current trends, most girls in Somalia and Djibouti will see their own daughters mutilated, too.

It is therefore time to consider a new approach. Instead of trying to stamp FGM out entirely, governments should ban the worst forms, permit those that cause no long-lasting harm and try to persuade parents to choose the least nasty version, or none at all. However distasteful, it is better to have a symbolic nick from a trained health worker than to be butchered in a back room by a village elder. If health workers also advised parents that even minor rituals are unnecessary, progress towards eradication could continue.

Might “harm reduction” lend spurious legitimacy to all types of FGM? Yes, but it has worked in other fields. Shooting galleries for heroin reduced HIV without increasing drug-taking. Free housing keeps homeless alcoholics out of hospital and, by making their lives less chaotic, helps them drink less.

A different comparison, with male circumcision, is also instructive. Unless botched, that procedure causes no lasting pain or impairment—but it also has no medical justification (except to slow the spread of HIV in countries where it is common). Nonetheless, circumcision is widely accepted, because of its cultural and religious significance. Activists focus on unhygienic traditional versions.

From worse to merely bad

No one knows whether parents could be persuaded to abandon the worst horrors of FGM for versions that, while still pointless and painful, would not leave their daughters damaged for life. That is because no one has tried. Various Western doctors have advocated offering minor forms of genital cutting to sub-Saharan immigrants, in the hope of sparing their daughters from a trip home for infibulation. Each time the outrage—from the UN, activists and many other medics—has forced them to retract.

Faced with the urgency of saving 400,000 girls from severe mutilation each year, arguments without evidence are not good enough. There is only one way to find out whether FGM can be ameliorated more quickly than ended: try it and see.

 

[frogwoman]

Reached my article limit the other day.

Here is an article about it, dont really want to look at the original piece lol but it has a link to it if you fancy getting your blood pressure up

The article continues “it is better to have a symbolic nick from a trained health worker than to be butchered in a back room by a village elder”, drawing comparisons between some forms FGM and male circumcision, claiming that both cause no lasting physical impairment.

A letter condemning the “dangerous and entirely unfounded” article was also sent to the Economist last week by Orchid Project and ActionAid. It has been signed by Womankind, Forward, 28 Too Many and Plan UK.

Julia Lalla-Maharajh, the CEO of Orchid Project, told the Guardian “Working on taboo and neglected issues like ending FGM is hard enough without well-respected publications like the Economist creating policy on the hoof and taking a line that puts our discussions back by decades. It discredits the experiences of women who have undergone FGM and is a highly regressive step."

 

[bimble]

The economist recently ran a piece advocating restricted legalisation of fgm

Yeah I read that. I don't think they were saying it because they hate women you know, or think fgm is ok. It was typical pragmatic attempt to argue that seeing as all the efforts to stamp it out completely are simply not working, especially in many African countries , maybe it would be worth focussing on eradicating the really dangerous unsafe procedures instead. Not nice but not entirely stupid either.
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...e-barbaric-practice-it-continues-time-try-new
Anyway, sorry for linking to that publication, didn't know it was verboten and will try not to do it again.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah I read that. I don;'t think they were saying it because they hate women you know, or think fgm is ok. It was typical pragmatic attempt to argue that seeing as all the efforts to stamp it out completely are simply not working, especially in many African countries , maybe it would be worth focussing on eradicating the really dangerous unsafe procedures instead. Not nice but not stupid either.

I didn't say they ran that piece cos they hated women tbf. i don't think they do, they're typical market neoliberals, the thing is they are just saying shit that accords with their free market philosophy. the problem is that its actually emboldened some groups that think fgm is a good idea, at a time when more progress against it was actually beginning to be made.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah I read that. I don't think they were saying it because they hate women you know, or think fgm is ok. It was typical pragmatic attempt to argue that seeing as all the efforts to stamp it out completely are simply not working, especially in many African countries , maybe it would be worth focussing on eradicating the really dangerous unsafe procedures instead. Not nice but not entirely stupid either.
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...e-barbaric-practice-it-continues-time-try-new
Anyway, sorry for linking to that publication, didn't know it was verboten and will try not to do it again.

I do agree that hillary's being a woman is a factor in why people don't like her. the point i was trying to make wasnt that the economist are sexist or even that its not a reliable source for certain things, but that it views are not the be and end all of what is good for women lol.

 

[bimble]

I reckon that even my Florida aunty's inarticulate loathing and mistrust towards Hillary has a lot to do with this tbh, when she was trying to explain why she hates her so much it was nothing to do with policy it was about her being cold and manipulative and too clever for her own good, things like that, things that I can't really imagine her saying about a powerful man. I dunno.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

ah yeah. the economist and their infatuation with the family unit.

This is what we call commonsense pragmatism, apparently.

Naturally still down with the whole let's tell browns and blacks what's good for them but in this really insidious we're on the same side.

Truly awful article.

 

[frogwoman]

I reckon that even my Florida aunty's inarticulate loathing and mistrust towards Hillary has a lot to do with this tbh, when she was trying to explain why she hates her so much it was nothing to do with policy it was about her being cold and manipulative and too clever for her own good, things like that, things that I can't really imagine her saying about a powerful man. I dunno.

Yeah im sure, you can see it in the fact female politicians get a lot more of a harder time generally speaking. hillary is just a standard politician though, i dont think shes exceptionally corrupt compared to other american politicians, and theres an obvious misogynistic tone coming from some of the trump fans ('trump that bitch') etc, but i also dont think that the fact shes female is the only reason shes disliked tbh.

I would be wary in putting all of the reasons why people are reluctant to vote for her down to that, its obviously a part of it but its not the whole reason.

 

[frogwoman]

ah yeah. the economist and their infatuation with the family unit.

This is what we call commonsense pragmatism, apparently.

Naturally still down with the whole let's tell browns and blacks what's good for them but in this really insidious we're on the same side.

Truly awful article.

Innit

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Innit

It's as if free healthcare is worldwide!

All the guys in our part of the country got their knobs cut by village dudes.