Post: #1

In the Government Shutdown thread, It_is_my_time wrote with regards to President Obama:

"He is a feminist, of course I don't like him. Red pill males don't like feminists. I am a red pill male."

To which Hencridible Casanova replied with the eye rolling monkey smiley, then later wrote:

"Complaints and inaction is as far from "red pill" as it gets to me."

I'm making this a separate thread because I want to take it away from the ACA/Government Shutdown topic and get to what I think is 2 very important points that needs to be discussed here...and it needs to be done without continuing the partisan based battle of the other thread.

These two things are: the definition of "the red pill" and whether or not Obama is in fact a Feminist.

First up, Obama is most certainly a feminist. I share It_is_my_time's sentiment. Supporting Obama is supporting the Feminist agenda.

How in holy hell can the RVF feature a bunch of guys who consider themselves to have "taken the red pill" not get this?

From My President is a Feminist:

Quote:"No woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes. Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. Period."

- That’s what feminism sounds like.

And then we have this: Feminist Majority PAC Endorses Barack Obama

Quote:Obama and Biden are strong supporters of women’s rights including the right to equal pay for equal work, programs to reduce violence against women, a woman’s right to choose legal and safe abortion as well as have access to affordable birth control, work/family balance issues, and end to the Iraq war.

“Obama/Biden are running on the strongest platform for women’s rights of any major party in USA history,” said Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority. “But it’s not just platforms. Voting records show the stark difference between the Obama and McCain tickets.”

Feminist Majority is proud to stand with our allied organizations the National Organization for Women, Business and Professional Women, National Association of Social Workers, National Congress of Black Women, and the Women’s Information Network as well as those who have endorsed separately including the National Association of Nurses, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL, and literally hundreds of women leaders from many different sectors who have broken down barriers for women.

“It’s no wonder teachers, nurses, social workers, businesswomen and women business owners, and feminists stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden,” said Smeal. “Whether it is work and family issues, combating wage discrimination or violence against women, or keeping abortion safe and legal or birth control accessible and affordable, the Obama ticket is 100% on record supporting women’s rights while the McCain ticket often rates a zero on issues impacting millions of women and girls’ opportunities, prosperity, health, education, and very lives.”

The Feminist Majority PAC is releasing today an issue by issue comparison of the Obama/Biden versus McCain/Palin records, platforms, and policy positions. The comparison is stark and in some cases down right shocking.

For example, Senator Biden authored and championed the Violence Against Women Act; Senator Obama co-sponsored its re-authorization. Yet, even on this bipartisan bill to reduce violence against women, Senator McCain voted against VAWA funding. What’s even more astounding is Senator McCain even voted against $214 million funding for Breast Cancer Research. We passed it anyway no thanks to Senator McCain. Senator McCain was not a leader for breaking barriers for women in the 20th century, much less the 21st century. He has consistently helped to maintain those barriers.

Is it really monkey-eye-rolling silly to state emphatically that Obama is a Feminist, and a red pill male opposes feminism?



The definition of the red pill is an allegory that represents seeing through the lies and illusions of our mass media - corporate/institutional matrix we call "society."

Actually, I know exactly how they not get this. It's precisely how politics has been used to socially engineer society for the past 100 years, and those RVF's who are cheering for Obama are falling for it. It's the oldest tactic in politics under any system of Governance: Divide and conquer.

Get the masses concerned with "their" side winning the fight. You get more concerned with beating the evil opposition that you overlook or ignore the evil your side is doing because you think it's more important to defeat the other side.

Only you fail to notice the many other ways both sides agree on so many things while keeping everyone distracted with Dialectic theater.

For those that don't understand the phrase "Dialectic theater" let me break it down for you - it's based on the Hegelian Dialect (google it if you like).

Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis

Democrats are Liberal Progressive Feminists. In the case of ACA and the LibProg agenda - the Thesis.

Republicans are Traditional Conservative White Knights. In this case, the anti-thesis.

Now that the shutdown is over, we have synthesis. Obama care will move forward, and the Government will continue to borrow and spend to fund all of it's programs, and the so called anti-thesis, the "right wing" has been told that they've been defeated, and the only thing they can do is GET OUT AND VOTE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

The Democrat LibProgs move the feminist agenda forward, incrementally over a long period of time.

The TradCons appear to oppose the proposed progress...by conserving the previous incremental gains the LibProgs had fought to impose years before.

In this way, the true agenda keeps moving forward, taking both Team Left and Team Right towards the real goal, the synthesis.

Take for instance, the Fight to Defend Marriage. Decades ago, the fight to defend marriage was against No-Fault Divorce. TradCon hero, Ronald Reagan pioneered that feminist bedrock program by being the first Governor of a State to sign No Fault Divorce into law (because he wanted no-fault divorce for his own at-fault divorce he went through with his first wife).

It is now the law in all 50 states.

30+ years later, the TradCon movement is still Fighting to "Defend Marriage." But No Fault Divorce, aka Marriage 2.0 is the new normal....the synthesis.

Thesis: At Fault Divorce + Anti-Thesis: No Fault Divorce = Synthesis: Marriage 2.0

Now we have zero TradCon/RightWing/Republican National politicians that ever discusses the topics associated with the injustices and unconstitutional actions of the No Fault Divorce/Family Court system. It's the new normal.

No...their fighting to preserve Marriage 2.0 from the horrors of teh Gayz (2% of the population...oh noez!!) from getting married.

This is how it plays out on any and every issue that has true significance in the world of economics, politics and Government.

Come next election, the TradCon Right may actually take over the White House and Congress again. Or maybe two elections from now. Nevertheless, consider the gains made by Obama and the LibProg Left of today, to be the actions and programs that will be fought to conserved by the TradCons of tomorrow.

This is why I think we need to have a discussion about what is "the Red Pill."

The Red Pill means seeing through the entire fucking charade, not cheerleading for one side or the other.

Post: #2

Oh yea, Obama is a huge feminist. By far the most feminist president we have had.

Excellent post! I share your sentiments. The Republicans are slightly better for men than Democrats, but not by much. The best of all the parties that has any legit chance in an election would be the Independents and Libertarians.

Post: #3

In addendum - note that this all works the other way, as well:

Quote:"The Democrat LibProgs move the feminist agenda forward, incrementally over a long period of time.

The TradCons appear to oppose the proposed progress...by conserving the previous incremental gains the LibProgs had fought to impose years before.

The TradCons moved the transformation of America in to a surveillance police state and expanding the fiat wars on foreign shores, and Obama and the LibProgs have not only not rescinded any of it despite claiming they would when they were campaigning, they've actually extended it - Guantanamo is still open, rendition is still going on, warrantless wiretapping, and everything else done in the name of the "war on terror" has expanded under Obama and PATRIOT Acts have been reauthorized and we now have legalized assassination of American Citizens.

Thus the TradCons pay lip service to opposing feminism, the LibProgs pay lip service to opposing war and the authoritarian police state.

Post: #4

It's very simple - since the 1960's the democratic party has been home base for feminists.

For those who are left-wing on this board - you have to confront the fact that feminists have completely invaded and control left-wing politics in America. It is impossible to implement a left-wing measure, such as universal healthcare, without having feminists put their agenda into the mix as well.

Post: #5

The only problem is that Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats when it comes to Manosphere issues.

Some of the biggest betas and white knights I have ever met are the self-described Christian conservatives.

Post: #6

(10-17-2013 03:55 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  The only problem is that Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats when it comes to Manosphere issues.

Some of the biggest betas and white knights I have every met are the self-described Christian conservatives.

It's because feminism took over the educational complex back in the early 1970's, and so everyone has been indoctrinated with feminist beliefs. The longer a person stays in the education system, the more they are brainwashed with feminist beliefs.

So even if they vote for Republican, they still are unconsciously preaching feminist ideals.

And because the majority of the population has been brought up with feminist programming for the past 40 years, it is impossible for the Republicans, or any other political party, to stand up to the feminists without losing tons of votes.

And none of this changes the fact that feminists still have their home base in the democratic party.

Post: #7

The real question is: How do you destroy a parasite living in two hosts?

Post: #8

(10-17-2013 03:59 PM)Edmund Dantes Wrote:  The real question is: How do you destroy a parasite living in two hosts?

Kill both of the hosts.

Post: #9

(10-17-2013 03:59 PM)Edmund Dantes Wrote:  The real question is: How do you destroy a parasite living in two hosts?

Strike the Root

Post: #10

I don't know if he's a feminist so much as he knew he needed the support and votes from women's groups to get elected. If only men had voted, Mitt Romney would be president. And before that John Mccain would have been president. And Sarah Palin may have even been president. I'm certain pandering to women was a political move more than anything. And it worked - he got 59+% of the women's vote.

Post: #11

Post: #12

(10-17-2013 03:55 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  The only problem is that Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats when it comes to Manosphere issues.

Some of the biggest betas and white knights I have ever met are the self-described Christian conservatives.

They're on the same team. They're two sides of the same coin.

They both fuck the people - but pretend to disagree about how. The republicans want to do it slow, the democrats want to do it hard and fast. The republicans refuse to snuggle and the democrats call us the next day to tell us what a great time they had.

Wald

Post: #13

(10-17-2013 07:15 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 03:55 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  The only problem is that Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats when it comes to Manosphere issues.

Some of the biggest betas and white knights I have ever met are the self-described Christian conservatives.

They're on the same team. They're two sides of the same coin.

They both fuck the people - but pretend to disagree about how. The republicans want to do it slow, the democrats want to do it hard and fast. The republicans refuse to snuggle and the democrats call us the next day to tell us what a great time they had.

Wald

Yep, at the end of the day, the democrats want to take the extra money in my pocket and give it to the poor, the republicans want to take my money and give it to the really rich.

I don't like the use of the word income inequality but it takes a fool to not see that the income gap is widening and will continue to do so. At this point both teams seem to have the same end-goal no matter what they present in the public sphere. If that income gap is not addressed in a practical matter, there will be serious implications for everyone within the borders of he country.

Post: #14

Well, I find the results of this poll encouraging. Who's the 1 guy that voted Obama is NOT a feminist?

I understand that a lot of guys who come from the "left" side of the aisle and believe in many of it's tenets (Universal healthcare, Collective Bargaining/Unionized labor, etc.) would be supportive of certain measures put forth by Obama and the Democrat Party. For you guys, I guess it's obvious, you don't consider feminism to be as much of a concern as the other issues, therefore you've taken the "let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater" approach to your political beliefs and advocacy.

But, hey, at least let's be intellectually honest. Obama is a feminist, full stop.

Quote:I don't know if he's a feminist so much as he knew he needed the support and votes from women's groups to get elected. If only men had voted, Mitt Romney would be president. And before that John Mccain would have been president. And Sarah Palin may have even been president. I'm certain pandering to women was a political move more than anything. And it worked - he got 59+% of the women's vote.

Does this really matter? Whether he supports and enacts the feminist agenda because he is a true believer in it, or he's just doing it to get votes HE'S STILL PROMOTING THE FEMINIST AGENDA.

Ergo, he's a feminist.

....but the idea that someone calls Obama a feminist only to be responded to with only an eye rolling smiley dismissal is ludicrous.

Glad to see most RVF that bothered to vote on the poll got it right.

On this forum, of all places, the statement "President Obama is a feminist" should not be controversial at all.

Post: #15

Also keep in mind that feminists like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte have actually worked in adviser roles for Democratic presidential candidates

Post: #16

Just seeing this thread. I haven't voted on the poll. I like the attempt to define what the term "red pill" -- which is used far too loosely -- even means. BUT, it's not a useful definition. Seeing through the "illusion of the mass media." That's very much subject to interpretation and doesn't relate jack shit to one's politics. There's hardcore leftists that aren't represented in the mainstream media and the same goes with the far right wing.

Personally, I don't know of a single city worth gaming in that's conservative. I also have never seen a person with very right wing views do well with women. Whether that exists or not is one thing, but I haven't seen it personally.

Post: #17

Also, the more important point is, who cares about the groups the President reaches out to for VOTES. That's his job. How many of you dudes actually even vote, let alone donate to campaigns? What does Obama stand to gain from getting your support? Probably not much. Meanwhile, Obama actually benefited from the young female vote, not just in his general elections against Republicans, but even with his tough primary challenge against Hillary Clinton (who was enormously popular with women) in his first campaign for President.

If I had a business and feminists were interested in what I was selling, then I'd try to get their business too. That's what this is about. I would say feminists chose him, not the other way around. I think feminists always resented Hillary for standing by her husband after that Lewinsky scandal. I'd bet most wanted her to leave him.

Post: #18

Quote:who cares about the groups the President reaches out to for VOTES

Most the guys here on this forum probably do. Having the largest economy in the world falter, which is causing problems world wide, all because the president wants to take away from the givers the do-ers, the job creators to give to anti-male/anti-family feminists who then waste it is very concerning to many.

Post: #19

how many mainstream US politicians wouldnt consider themselves feminists or throw their support to feminist causes? not many because theyre all a product of the culture and system we have today. saying obama is a feminist is not saying much

Post: #20

Hencredible C, please....

There's a reason why I made the poll as straightforward and unbiased as possible.

A yes or no question, just to see if the idea of identifying Obama as a feminist was as controversial or ridiculous a statement on this forum as you seem to think it is.

The results are in, glad to see most RVF have no problem calling a spade, a spade.

Post: #21

Let's take a look at what happens when a President-elect "chases votes" by getting the support of feminist groups.

Quote:Men are bearing the brunt of the current economic crisis because they predominate in manufacturing and construction, the hardest-hit sectors, which have lost more than 3 million jobs since December 2007. Women, by contrast, are a majority in recession-resistant fields such as education and health care, which gained 588,000 jobs during the same period. Rescuing hundreds of thousands of unemployed crane operators, welders, production line managers, and machine setters was never going to be easy. But the concerted opposition of several powerful women's groups has made it all but impossible. Consider what just happened with the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Last November, President-elect Obama addressed the devastation in the construction and manufacturing industries by proposing an ambitious New Deal-like program to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. He called for a two-year "shovel ready" stimulus program to modernize roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, public transportation, and dams and made reinvigorating the hardest-hit sectors of the economy the goal of the legislation that would become the recovery act.

Women's groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like "Where are the New Jobs for Women?" and "The Macho Stimulus Plan." A group of "notable feminist economists" circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to "institute apprenticeships" to train women for "at least one third" of the infrastructure jobs. At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a "heavily male-dominated field" like construction: "We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges." As soon as these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group called WEAVE--
Women's Equality Adds Value to the Economy.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), the Feminist Majority, the Institute for Women's Policy Research, and the National Women's Law Center soon joined the battle against the supposedly sexist bailout of men's jobs. At the suggestion of a staffer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, NOW president Kim Gandy canvassed for a female equivalent of the "testosterone-laden 'shovel-ready' " terminology. ("Apron-ready" was broached but rejected.) Christina Romer, the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers, would later say of her entrance on the political stage, "The very first email I got . . . was from a women's group saying 'We don't want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.' "

No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs. The president-elect's original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure that is indispensable for long-term economic growth. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct programs, nor was it a macho plan--the whole idea of economic stimulus is to use government spending to put idle factors of production back to work.

The president-elect responded to the protests by sending Jason Furman, his soon-to-be deputy director at the National Economic Council, along with his senior aides to a meeting organized by Kim Gandy and Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal.

So what happened after this meeting?

Quote:In her March "Below the Belt" column on the NOW website, Kim Gandy could not contain her elation over "this happily-ever-after 'stimulus story.' " When she and her allies saw the final recovery package, they were amazed to find "over and over" versions of "very specific proposals that we had made." More than that, the programs NOW had proposed had vast sums of money next to them--"numbers that started with a 'B' (as in billion)," Gandy said gleefully. "It's impossible to convey just how many hours we put into this issue during December and early January and how fruitful it really turned out to be."

Right again. It is now four months since the bill was signed into law. A recent Associated Press story reports: "Stimulus Funds Go to Social Programs Over 'Shovel-ready' Projects." A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services. According to Chris Whately, director of the Council of State Governments, "We all talked about 'shovel-ready' since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that's not the case." At the same time, the Labor Department's latest (June 5) employment report shows unemployment rates of 8 percent for women and 10.5 percent for men. "Unprecedented" is what Harvard economist Greg Mankiw called the new 2.5 percentage-point gender gap. "It's the highest male-female jobless rate gap in the history of BLS [Labor Department] data back to 1948," said Mark Perry.

But Obama is not a feminist........



Now.....I anticipate the few folks who are in denial about Obama being a feminist are going to ignore the above excerpts and use the classic "attack the source" rather then the ideas. (The Weekly Standard is a Repubulicon/Tea Party rag financed by the Koch brothers...)

So let's look at one of the sources offered by the author of that piece...NOW President Kim Gandy's triumphant column:


Economic Recovery: What's NOW Got to Do With It?

Quote:When I told this happily-ever-after "stimulus story" in my president's report at NOW's board meeting last weekend, several members said they wished more people knew what NOW and other advocacy groups really do in Washington. In reality, this work is often tedious, always time-consuming, and definitely not glamorous, but it's oh-so-important to women's lives.

So in that spirit, I offer this glimpse into NOW's efforts "behind-the-scenes" during the past several months to ensure that women are positively impacted by the economic recovery package and that they play an integral role in the revitalization of our economy and our country. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president on Feb. 17.

But what happened in the lead up to that day, and what's NOW got to do with it?

Soon after the election, the NOW officers and staff started participating in a variety of meetings with the Obama-Biden transition team -- from reproductive rights and immigration to hate crimes and economic issues (like equal pay and family leave). None of the scheduled meetings appeared to address how women would be included in the developing economic stimulus plan, which I kindly brought to their attention. The transition team lobbed that ball back to our court, asking NOW and the Feminist Majority to put such a meeting together. When we did, we made sure that the diversity of the women's community was represented and that we put forward very specific measures that could be included in the plan. It was a very different kind of meeting.

Before the meeting, we were hearing that billions of dollars would go into "shovel ready" projects. Newsflash! Women make up less than 15 percent of the construction industry, and a lot of the positions filled by women are lower-paying administrative jobs -- not the work that pays serious money. Women's unemployment was almost as high as men's at that point, and we know that 40 percent of women are the sole support of themselves or their families.

One of the challenges was that our recommendations needed to do one of two things: 1) invest in efforts or projects that would put women back to work and help jump-start the economy, or 2) alleviate the pain of the unemployed and those who were most profoundly suffering from the recession.

So Mz. Gandy then goes on to describe the meetings between Feminist activists and the President's advisors and cabinet members. Then the "shovel-ready" stimulus Obama campaigned on came out.

Much to the feminists satisfaction, tt was no longer "shovel ready."

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Obama is a feminist.

Anyone who insists otherwise is just spinning the wheel.

Post: #22

He's simply a smart politician. If it gets you the votes, who really cares what you actually think.

Post: #23

(10-18-2013 10:33 PM)Mike5055 Wrote:  He's simply a smart politician. If it gets you the votes, who really cares what you actually think.

Is there a concept of right and wrong in your world?

If a politician could get lots of votes by nuking countries in the middle east, would that make it okay?

Post: #24

I didn't say it was right, I just said how it was.

I personally don't think it's right. I think politicians should campaign on issues and positions they believe in and intend to follow through on.

Post: #25

Throwing labels like that at Obama is useless and disingenuous. It's like those fools who call him a "socialist" which is not true at all. He hasn't nationalized shit and is, what Ron Paul referred to as, a "corporatist." He's backed by corporations, just like all major party candidates of both parties, and he helps them in turn. Compare that to Presidents in countries like France who label their domestic agendas as "the rupture with capitalism." Francois Hollande came into his job introducing a top tax rate of 85%. Former President Francois Mitterand nationalized 38 banks!

I have a really close friend who works in healthcare policy. Private healthcare companies have had a long time to structure their businesses in anticipation of Obamacare. It would NEVER have passed without their support. Believe that. They are going to see 31 million new customers thanks to Obama, and hospitals will get federal subsidies. Remember, he's not nationalizing healthcare, he's expanding access to private care. Hardly an FDR or LBJ move. Quite the contrary.

He also bailed out the banks and the auto industry (the latter of which helped him win swing states in the Midwest for his reelection), helping return them to profitability and lining up the pockets of the rich. Crony capitalism, not socialism. He showed ZERO support for those Occupy protesters during that time.

It just shows how far to the right - or even jealous - some people are if they think he's a socialist. You should visit left wing blogs and see how butthurt real liberals are by his presidency. Even many in Hollywood refused to support him for his reelection campaign for his centrist policies that were designed not to rock the boat. The turnout among his core supporters in the first election stayed at home the second time. Romney should have won but he didn't inspire the conservative base so the 2012 race was just between two duds. I would argue they were both Republican-lite.

Personally, I don't consider social issues when evaluating "national" politicians. That's emotional, irrelevant, and similar to how women vote. I look at my economic interests. Last time I checked, it was a Republican President who took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. Local politics is much different (plenty of competent Republicans at the state and local level), but I think the greatest Presidents since the 20th century have been Dems.