Gora Obso

Both females and males have, historically, had privileges and disadvantages. Being a male, for example, gave one the advantages of being thought of as more (or perhaps less) than a baby producing piece of property. Being a female offered the privilege of not being forced to put oneself in life threatening situations to protect the community (particularly the women and children). One of the most effective critiques of the modern female is the fact that women want to move past the strict confines of the female role of times past without losing many of the privileges that came with that role. An example of this would be women being granted suffrage while keeping male only draft registration. Meanwhile, while men have made some strides towards breaking out of their old role, they have made much less progress than women. The decline of the draft, for instance, seems to have more to do with an overall decline in violence than with any changes in how we view the male role. You may n

Vox has a new article  on Devin Nunes and his questioning of Mueller and this excerpt caught my attention: Nunes’s subsequent questioning of Mueller consisted of him essentially name-dropping a bunch of peripheral players in Russiagate in a manner that suggested some sort of nefarious conspiracy was at play. But one doesn’t need to wade into the weeds of his conspiracy theory to recognize that the allegation that Democrats colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton and help Trump become president is absurd on its face. I've noticed the nut jobs who have been pushing the "RUSSIA!" conspiracy theory for the last couple years, only to be proven consistently wrong, have a strong tendency to project their own paranoid conspiratorial mindset onto the more reasonable, now vindicated people (i.e. Russiagate skeptics). The thing here is that the people pushing the conspiracy most vigorously are the centre to centre left media rather than the far left. It's like a cent

"Met a mediocre looking girl on bumble. She seemed interested in sex. So I tried to set it up. It had been a while since I'd had sex. Then she asked for a nude picture. I suspected she was some sort of scammer. I said no to giving her nudes. I still asked to meet up in hopes of sex. She says yes and when I ask where to meet up she responds "Hell". Bet she got a real kick out of that. An average looking trashy girl gets to see a guy drool all over her during a conversation only to abruptly end it by making sure he knows his advances are really little more than a joke to her." Incels are an interesting group. Men who want sex but can't get any. Or maybe men who want human connection but are desperately lonely. Or maybe they're entitled losers who think they are entitled to women. "At a bar alone. Drunk as shit like usual. Tried talking to girls. After all, if i'm being honest, that's why I was there. I was there to have sex or at least

In summary, "incels" or "nice guys" are men who have experienced chronic sexual rejection. In large part, they blame this sexual rejection on women going for "jerks" over themselves. The phrase "friendzone" (the phenomenon of males wanting a romantic relationship with a female that sees him in a more platonic matter) is often associated with these guys. The feminist view says that, in fact, these guys are not "nice" at all. Instead, they feel entitled to sex with certain women just because they were nice to them. Furthermore, this kind of sexual entitlement contributes to violence and misogyny. This view, on its face, seems reasonable. But, the subtle mistakes are quite important. The first one of these is the idea of entitlement. In fact, I agree that, in large part, these males do feel entitled to intimacy. This is where the feminist narrative goes wrong. Feeling entitled to intimacy is not the same thing as feeling entitled to someon

Here's  a politician named JB Sanford arguing against women's suffrage in 1911: "Suffrage is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place for a women consequently the privilege should not be granted to her. ...The men are able to run the government and take care of the women. Do women have to vote in order to receive the protection of man? Why, men have gone to war, endured every privation and death itself in defense of woman. To man, woman is the dearest creature on earth, and there is no extreme to which he would not go for his mother or sister.  By keeping woman in her exalted position man can be induced to do more for her than he could by having her mix up in affairs that will cause him to lose respect and regard for her. Woman does not have to vote to secure her rights. Man will go to any extreme to protect and elevate her now. As long as woman is woman and keeps her place she will get more protection and more consideration t

Here's a study from the University of Michigan from 2012: "This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences. Most studies control for endogenous severity measures that result from these earlier discretionary processes and use samples that have been winnowed by them. I avoid these problems by using a linked dataset tracing cases from arrest through sentencing. Using decomposition methods, I show that most sentence disparity arises from decisions at the ear

Are the Democrats going to propose some new sort of busing scheme in 2020? Busing was wildly unpopular with voters back in the day and, arguably, played a huge role in helping Republicans win elections in the post civil rights era.

This is the second time I've replied to a Lion of the Blogosphere post. It's one of the most interesting blogs I read so naturally I always like to respond when I see something I disagree with. This time LOTB is arguing  that Trump is doomed for reelection! Is this the truth? LOTB gives the following reasons: 1.) Older voters, disproportionately Trump supporters are dying off 2.) Younger voters, disproportionately more liberal, are joining the voting population 3.) Anti Trump hysteria will drive up Democrat turnout 4.) Pro Trump outrage peaked out in November 2016 5.) Not nearly enough Clinton voters will "jump ship" to vote Trump in 2020 to make up for these shifts So is Trump doomed as LOTB says? Maybe, but there are a number of things that make me think he could have a chance. First off, it is true that older voters tend to be conservative while younger voters tend to be liberal. And, admittedly, it seems that younger voters are not getting any less