I don’t even have an iota left.
5 Likes
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?
5 Likes
Yes, and it “made sense” from the first.
And it’s still a terrible idea. I’ve given several examples why.
4 Likes
6 Likes
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.
11 Likes
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.
7 Likes
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.
6 Likes
6 Likes
10 Likes
Toxic masculinity as a part of what feminism is trying to solve:
13 Likes
You see, Democratic women only care about their gender, whereas Republican women care about the big picture instead:
7 Likes
“Don’t mind us, we sure are tough broads, aren’t we? Pick up that smile, Gladys.”
6 Likes
Stacey Abrams was great.
6 Likes
12 Likes
Not surprised in the slightest:
11 Likes
17 Likes
11 Likes
So Trump preaches about stopping the human traffickers with his idiotic wall, when he and his are doing it themselves.
This is monstrous.
13 Likes
This is Pizzagate-level projection.
9 Likes