Maybe it's just me, but when I see veterans taking buyouts or capitulating to Trump, it upsets me. They took an oath to defend the Constitution and yet they can't stay in a job to making the incoming fascists work just a little harder? If they're still referring to their time in the army or are eligible for VA benefits, they should be fighting fascism. We're all trying our best, and I'm not asking everyone to stay, even though that'd be great if they could, but way to fold like a wet napkin.
MountingSuspicion
joined 2 years ago
I wasn't intending to imply you said anything, but the author states "we’re just not old enough to benefit from it yet" and that in itself is emblematic of a big issue when it comes to patriarchy and any other power structures. It's difficult for people to identify it, since it becomes so ingrained.
Young boys benefit from it, but are also restricted by it, and there's a lot of discussion about that too. Girls being told to "make me a sandwich" (or insert generationally relevant sexist remark) or being sexually harassed at school, and boys being told not to cry or that their interests are "gay" are both examples that I often see emphasized when talking to kids.
I think the author overlooking how boys benefit is part of the problem. These early issues need to be acknowledged and discussed because they help build a foundation of solidarity. If young boys are taught to notice these inequalities early, then they will be more open and able to notice them later. It will also help humanize their classmates.
I hate that all of these discussions inevitably lead to "dating". This is not directed at you, just the issue in general. Girls are generally the ones engaging in selection, yes, but the fact that this is the issue is kind of the problem in itself. Boys are not owed a girlfriend and their self worth should not be tied to having one. If they have feelings of inadequacy, they will not be solved by getting into a romantic relationship. I feel like no one is talking about why these young boys are striving for romantic relationships to the point that they feel like failures without one. Society is telling boys that they need to value themselves based on their ability to obtain women. This is not a dating market issue. It's a self esteem/self worth issue, and women are neither the cause nor the solution.
"Touch grass" etc is not at its core bad advice, it just feels hostile and is more difficult than the alternative (doing nothing). Having IRL friends and engaging in activities locally is a great way to build confidence and self worth, but it's not as fun to start as a video game. I don’t know how the partnership you're suggesting would work, but I think therapy in general is good, and serves as a kind of alternative to building community, because you get a confidant that provides some pushback the way a normal and diverse friend group might. It's a good option, but I think less alienation in general is always a good way to build a robust defense to bigotry.
Yea, there were klansmen voting for Obama because they legitimately thought it'd make the whole country kick out black people. People hold really weird beliefs.
There were some good points made, but I don't know that this is one of them. Households with a son and daughter will still often have gender-segregated household chores for the children. The daughter will do the dishes and the son will take out trash. Different curfews or restrictions and different "talks". Educators are generally more understanding with disruptive boys. Maybe he did not personally recognize or experience these differences, but they are present from the very beginning.
Other than that, the advice is generally "engage with different people" and that's been pretty standard for a while, often derisively as "touch grass" or being accused of having "terminally online" takes. He also states that trumps policies are worse for men, but honestly it depends on your perspective. Clearly a lot of men are willing to sacrifice to avoid examining their positions, so if I'm a man unwilling to have my beliefs challenged, I'd rather live in trumps America where women will have to marry me because they can no longer have jobs or bank accounts then spend the time improving myself to become a worthy partner and potentially never getting there.
I truly do not understand the hostility here. It's important that people understand that there are undocumented students on college campuses and that this legislation, like basically all legislation from this administration poses real harm to them. Please see the content of this comment I put elsewhere in this thread:
Dreamers is one of the names for undocumented people. DACA is legislation that's been implemented to protect some of them. Did you even bother reading anything in the above link above? Here's a direct quote: While there are over 408,000 undocumented students currently enrolled in postsecondary education, less than half (181,000) are DACA-eligible
DACA was implemented because dreamers were going to school already, it's not HOW they go school.
DACA also does not make someone "documented". It is a weird loophole, but their immigration status is still technically undocumented despite them being able to work and go to school. Basically the government promises not to do anything about them for a bit. They have to keep renewing that promise. It's not like a normal visa. The government is not actually giving them a "right" to stay.
See here: "DACA/DACA-mented Students who are DACA recipients (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), also known as “DACA-mented” students, are still considered undocumented students even though they may have a social security number and/or an Employment Authorization Card. DACA students should follow the same steps as an undocumented student when applying to SOU. A copy of your Employment Authorization Card is not required for admission processing."
And
"Some undocumented students may be part of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) while others are not." https://sou.edu/admissions/apply/uid/
"Deferred action is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status." https://www.uscis.gov/DACA
I am quite familiar with this particular status. It seems like everybody else is going off of vibes, and not even bothering to take two seconds to google this. Are you familiar with the definition of documented/undocumented? It's not as simple as the way it's used in general conversation.
Undocumented students can and do go to college. Some of them are eligible for DACA. DACA does not make you documented.
Dreamers is one of the names for undocumented people. DACA is legislation that's been implemented to protect some of them. Did you even bother reading anything in the above link above? Here's a direct quote: While there are over 408,000 undocumented students currently enrolled in postsecondary education, less than half (181,000) are DACA-eligible
DACA was implemented because dreamers were going to school already, it's not HOW they go school.
DACA also does not make someone "documented". It is a weird loophole, but their immigration status is still technically undocumented despite them being able to work and go to school. Basically the government promises not to do anything about them for a bit. They have to keep renewing that promise. It's not like a normal visa. The government is not actually giving them a "right" to stay.
See here: "DACA/DACA-mented Students who are DACA recipients (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), also known as “DACA-mented” students, are still considered undocumented students even though they may have a social security number and/or an Employment Authorization Card. DACA students should follow the same steps as an undocumented student when applying to SOU. A copy of your Employment Authorization Card is not required for admission processing."
And
"Some undocumented students may be part of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) while others are not." https://sou.edu/admissions/apply/uid/
"Deferred action is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status." https://www.uscis.gov/DACA
I am quite familiar with this particular status. It seems like everybody else is going off of vibes, and not even bothering to take two seconds to google this. Are you familiar with the definition of documented/undocumented? It's not as simple as the way it's used in general conversation.
Undocumented students can and do go to college. Some of them are eligible for DACA. DACA does not make you documented.
Sometimes I can't tell if I'm arguing with fascists who are attempting to waste my time, or people who are so incapable or uninterested in the conversation they don't even bother to read the links I readily provided, but for some reason are willing to respond multiple times. Please let me know which you are, so I know if I should even bother with the rest of this conversation.
This is easily googleable and I've provided links.
I have no idea why people prefer to spread misinformation instead of taking two seconds to fact check.
https://www.bestcolleges.com/resources/undocumented-students/college-application-guide/
A lot of (if not most) allow you to apply without some of that information and I've seen specific workflows set up for undocumented students depending on the school. You can Google most of it, but here's one of the first results: https://www.bestcolleges.com/resources/undocumented-students/college-application-guide/
There's a picture of her in the article at several months pregnant, and you can tell she's wearing baggier clothes, but not much baggier. She says she gained a little weight but not much. It's a recognized thing among doctors, so not sure why you're struggling to believe it.
Plenty of people at universities never had a visa in the first place.
I guess my main issue is that there are plenty of civilians who are making a stand who have not sworn any such oath.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, but "I was young then - I have a family now" doesn't really mean much to me, seeing as that applies to plenty of other people who are doing something. The alternative is not "get fired today". I know government employees who were unceremoniously let go and offered nothing. This is not the choice these people were facing. My opinion of these people means nothing, and certainly means even less than nothing when compared to keeping their family safe, but this is not an SS officer demanding to know where you're hiding the undesirables or they'll kill your family. This is the party asking if you'll kindly step aside so that they can install a nazi in your place. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of faith in the ethics and morals of vets anyway. Veteran status is the second best single predictor of candidate choice (next to education), to my knowledge. So I guess I don't really expect them to be any better than average, but it's just sad to see that assumption is accurate.
For what it's worth, your/their family will continue to be eligible for VA benefits regardless of where you're/they're currently employed. Most of those benefits have no civilian counterparts, so most civilians making that choice have even less safety net. I know Trump/republicans have been working hard to make sure you all don't have a safety net either, but stepping down politely when asked isn't making it harder for him to do that.
I truly hope martyrdom is not needed, but people will die because of Trump and they will not have the luxury of a choice. There will be people that stand in Trumps way, and those will unsurprisingly not be people who swore to protect the nation and its people. They'll just be people choosing to do what they can when they can.
I do appreciate you sharing your perspective.