That is horrible. No question, you were in an abusive relationship, and I’m very glad you got away safely.
The tool he used to control and abuse you happened to involve diet. But that’s all it was: his tool of choice. There’s enough of us here to list a entire page of innocuous household items or normal activities that were manipulated to cause us harm. The fault lies with the violent assholes, not whatever they happen to use to cause pain.
No, it wasn’t, and this seems to be the part you’re missing out on.
Where my family is from, and all through central and eastern Europe, calling someone a pig or a dog (or calling them worse than that) is a Very Bad Thing. Calling them a cow isn’t much better. You’d be better off swearing at them.
Seriously. I was in a class once where a man in our group discussion said, “should we let sleeping dogs lie?” and the Polish woman who had just contributed thought he was taking a dig at her by using that phrase. She was so upset she reprted him to the prof and quit the course.
That might sound extreme to you, but I totally understand where she was coming from, even though I also understand the man meant no offence.
The argument, “hey, traditionally your kind has been seen as barely better than domesticated animals, so now you have empathy for domesticated animals, right?” is very culturally insensitive. Especially to people who have had their personhood questioned, but to the general population in these cultures too. It is just not done.
I don’t even have an iota left.
I’m thinking more of the argument made here:
Over the years, many have asked why we don’t just tell people that Sikhs aren’t Muslims and leave it at that. “Why don’t you let Muslims deal with their own problems?” is a typical one. Or, “Wouldn’t it be easier and safer for you all to just tell people who attack you that they got the wrong person?”
The problem with this response is that it just deflects the hate onto another community. That’s not right, nor is it fair.
Nor is it Sikhism. My faith teaches me to engage in authentic solidarity, to see others’ oppression as our own. It’s just not an option to throw another community under the bus — even if it might make our lives easier or safer.
In other words, instead of focusing on the idea that there’s a hierarchy, and being compared to a more reviled stratum in society somehow lowers one to that level, the argument made in that article I posted was that there’s an “authentic solidarity” that the woman felt for animals as a result of her life experience.
Does that make sense?
Yes, and it “made sense” from the first.
And it’s still a terrible idea. I’ve given several examples why.
Yeah! It should be called the Sacagawea Expedition!
Kind of lost my last shred of respect for Lewis & Clark when I saw the quality of the maps the indigenous people drew for them.
This story is written oddly…
But then a tiny subcommittee in Richmond — the House Privileges and Elections subcommittee — voted along party lines to block the amendment from reaching the House floor after heavy lobbying from Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia. (Among the yes votes were two men, by the way. Yay, men!)
“Among?” There’s only one subcommittee led chaired by Margaret Ransone, and that committee only has two Democrats on it. So, if they’re voting along party lines, then the two men would be the only ones who voted for it.
After that subcommittee quash last Tuesday, Del. Mark D. Sickles (D-Fairfax), one of the two men on that subcommittee to vote yes, tried to introduce it to the full House Privileges and Elections Committee anyhow on Friday. That was defeated by a 12-10 vote along party lines.
Both the subcommittee and the full committee vote along party lines… and somehow Victoria Cobb gets all the credit/blame? It just seems odd to me. I mean, if they wanted to write a “woman kills the ERA” story, they could just as easily have painted Ransone as that woman: she would have shifted the second vote from 12-10 to 11-11.
I don’t get why this article is so laser-focused on the idea that Cobb, personally, killed the bill, when this is the (checks notes) sixth time in the past decade that the Virginia Senate has managed to pass this onto the House (only one of which when the Senate was controlled by Democrats), and the sixth time it’s failed in the House.
It just feels like this story went out of its way to be about Cobb, when it really didn’t need to be.
Now that you mention it, the article really did seem to be about drawing the link between her and Schlafly, rather than reporting the facts of the situation.
Toxic masculinity as a part of what feminism is trying to solve:
You see, Democratic women only care about their gender, whereas Republican women care about the big picture instead:
“Don’t mind us, we sure are tough broads, aren’t we? Pick up that smile, Gladys.”
Stacey Abrams was great.
Not surprised in the slightest:
