YoungDemCA
YoungDemCA's Journal
New theory: Trump ran for President to pay off his, erm, "debts" - hence, him wanting his tax cut.
Then, after Trump pays off the Rus...er, his creditors using the money he gets from his big beautiful tax cut, he'll finally actually be what he's always wanted to be.
A billionaire.
- Just my theory. 
United States of America vs. Paul Manafort Jr. and Richard W. Gates III: The Indictment (document).
https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/downloadHappy reading!
One thing (among many) that really angers me about the Republican Party...
...is that they've significantly lowered my expectations and standards for the Democratic Party.
Anyone else here feel the same way?
Sexual assault is about power inequities/asymmetries between individuals/groups, not sex or gender.
Fundamentally, that is. And it is certainly not about sexual attraction - not any healthy or mutual (by definition!) kind of attraction or behavior, at the very least.
Let me explain: Powerful women (to the extent that there are powerful women; compared to the number of powerful men, there's no comparison) are from my POV, usually a lot more careful about doing anything that might be construed as sexual assault or harassment (at least toward men and boys - quite the contrast to wealthy and powerful men, who have been individually and collectively getting away with all kinds of sexual harassment and assault for centuries, of course 
). Reason being: women have to be extra-careful compared to men if/when they manage to attain positions of power, influence, and authority.
However, I must note that there absolutely are women in positions of power and authority who abuse said authority to get their way with others sexually. I'm thinking specifically here of the schoolteachers who rape (by the statutory definition, at least) male students. The problem there, though, is that the flip-side of the toxic "boys will be boys" shit is this idea that men cannot possibly NOT consent to having sex with women, because they (we - I'm a man myself, full disclosure) are apparently biologically wired to be uncontrollable horn-dogs who'll happily fuck any woman they encounter. That ideology is extremely damaging to both men and women, period.
And of course, plenty of men and boys experience sexual assault from other men - look at prisons or the Catholic Church, for fuck's sake! (talk about power and authority! 
) Or indeed, a lot of pedophiles, or rape within LGBTQ circles (men, women, and transgender people alike - the last of those three being especially vulnerable to rape and other forms of sexual assault, from what I understand).
All of this is to say: Sexual assault is about power and power inequities more than it is about any healthy form of sexual attraction (by definition, since I'm assuming that we all can agree that grabbing someone by the pussy, ass, breasts, cock, etc. without that person's consent is not part of a healthy, romantic, and loving sexual relationship...). The fact that men collectively and more often than not, individually have more power physically, politically, and culturally than women is the REAL reason for why what we call "rape culture" is so closely related to predatory male sexual dominance over women and girls (and to an underappreciated and even more under-reported extent, toward other men and boys).
For I refuse to believe that men are more "naturally" inclined to sexual assault than women, and IMHO, this would certainly not be the case in a much more egalitarian society - one in which every aspect of social, cultural, economic, and political egalitarianism is real or at the very least, seriously strived for.
Feel free to share this or pass this along, fellow DU'ers. 
Powerful women don't seem to do it nearly as much because they know they can't get away with it.
Unlike powerful men - who have collectively been getting away with all kinds of sexual harassment and assault for centuries, of course.
However, I should also state that there absolutely are women in positions of authority who abuse said authority to get their way sexually. I'm thinking specifically of those schoolteachers who rape (statutory definition) male students. The problem there, though, is that the flip-side of "boys will be boys" is this idea that men cannot possibly NOT consent to having sex with women, because they (we - I'm a man myself, full disclosure) are biologically wired to horn-dogs who'll happily fuck any woman they encounter. That ideology is damaging to men and women alike.
And of course, plenty of men and boys experience sexual assault from other men - look at prisons or the Catholic Church (talk about power and authority! ) Or indeed, a lot of pedophiles, or rape within LGBTQ circles (men, women, and transgender alike - the last of those three being especially vulnerable to rape and other forms of sexual assault, from what I understand).
All of this is to say: Sexual assault is about power and power inequities more than it is about any healthy form of sexual attraction (by definition, since I'm assuming that we all can agree that grabbing someone by the pussy, ass, breasts, cock, etc. without that person's consent is not part of a healthy, romantic, and loving sexual relationship...). The fact that men collectively and more often than not, individually have more power physically, politically, and culturally than women is the REAL reason for why what we call "rape culture" is so closely related to predatory male sexual dominance over women and girls (and to an underappreciated and even more under-reported extent, toward other men and boys).
For I refuse to believe that men are more "naturally" inclined to sexual assault than women, and this would certainly not be the case in a much more egalitarian society - one in which every aspect of social, cultural, economic, and political egalitarianism is real or at the very least, seriously strived for.
Since 2010, the Democratic Party has lost hundreds of congressional and state legislative seats.
This is not a record to be proud of. Radical change is necessary, and it has to happen now.
Just donated to Swing Left's fund targeting GOP Rep. David Valadao.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/swing-CA-21-lefthttps://swingleft.org/
Let's do this, folks!
Mecca belongs to all Muslims, and Saudi Arabia shouldnt be allowed to run it
“In the years to come, it will be harder for Saudi Arabia to deny the desire of the world’s Muslims to see their holy cities reflect their pieties, and to cease the imposition of a view of Islam which is not only deeply alienating to the rest of the world, but deeply unpopular within the Muslim world.”
https://qz.com/511115/its-time-to-take-mecca-out-of-saudi-hands/
Interesting...
TabletMag: "Trump and his allies are pitting Jews and Muslims against each other." (8/30/17)
Illuminating and poignant article.
Donald Trump placed Islamophobia at the center of his campaign, and his presidency has already wreaked havoc on both the American and the Southwest Asian Muslim communities. Muslim Americans (like Jews) have witnessed a spike in hate crimes, including mosque vandalism and racist fliers. Abroad, Trump’s lax attitude toward military operations and his open lack of concern for civilian casualties (during his campaign, he even called on the military to intentionally kill the family members of terrorists) have led to increases in civilian casualty rates in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen since he took office. And of course, the infamous “travel ban” seeks both to curb the inflow of Muslim refugees to the United States and to minimize the number of Muslim immigrants in general.
This situation creates obvious perils for Muslims. But it also risks conscripting Jews in the service of prejudice. Simply put, the American Jewish community is in danger of becoming an instrument for defending bigotry. Legitimate Jewish and Israeli concerns about anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are being marshaled to justify policies repressing Muslims. We must not let that happen without challenge.
How are American Jews used as a weapon against American Muslims? To begin with, due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jews and Muslims are too often pitted against each other in the popular imagination. Geopolitical challenges over the last century have been spun into myths of an “ancient hatred,” such that the conflict has taken on a timeless and universal quality for many. To side with one religious community is to be against the other. We easily forget how localized and modern this conflict is—even the BILU Manifesto, a crucial Zionist document inked as late as 1882, proposed Zionism as a cooperative Jewish-Muslim venture, addressing the sultan with an offer “to help our brother Ishmael in his time of need” by supporting Ottoman foreign policy objectives. But today, far-right politicians nonetheless justify their anti-Muslim policies by claiming to be acting in defense of Jews or Israel.
The concept of the so-called “Judeo-Christian tradition” has further cemented the idea that Jews and Muslims are on opposite sides of a long-term rivalry. Christian political figures with their own histories of anti-Semitism have long used the term as part of their rhetorical toolbox. The idea of a “Judeo-Christian tradition” would have come as news to generations of Christian anti-Semites who saw their faith as superseding a backward Judaism. Nevertheless, the phrase has taken root, and served to categorize Judaism and Christianity as somehow especially similar—and unlike Islam.
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/244232/for-jews-the-fight-against-islamophobia-must-begin-at-home
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: CA
Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:29 PM
Number of posts: 5,714
