NRA sponsored elephant hunting show

Just when you think the reprehensible organization that is the NRA couldn't get any lower, it sponsors a program on killing elephants. Thank goodness NBC Sports canceled it. But what possessed them in the first place?

Who doesn't support background checks?

The "good feminist"

A recent, reactionary thread has led to a swarm of people claiming "all feminists aren't like that."
They are responding to blatant sexist posts comparing feminists to "school marms," by saying you're letting a few extreme examples determine your perception. No, what is happening is that you are talking to a defender of white male privilege.

Let's examine the "school marm" reference. A school marm is a teacher. She is informed. She corrects bad information. She interferes with the sexist's right to be stupid. Now, the right to be stupid is a jealously guarded one. It is highly irritating to sexists when we women demonstrate we know things. What they resent most, however, is when we confront them on their ignorance.

Consider why FEMEN was so popular among those who typically oppose women's rights. They were "hot chicks" picked by the Larry Flint of Russia, Victor Svyatski. They appeared topless, with slogans limited to three words written across their breasts. They didn't force European and American men to think about their privilege or the way in which sexism pervades all aspects of society. They were pretty and fun. Of course they were hand picked and run by a male Russian oligarch who refused to listen to the concerns of women in any of the local FEMEN chapters around the world, from places like Brazil to Tunisia. Brazilian FEMEN protesters were told they were too "chubby" and therefore didn't fit the image the group wanted to project. Muslim women were told their problems came from Islam itself rather than patriarchy.

Feminists are okay only as long as they don't challenge patriarchy and privilege. Demand the enforcement of EEOC law from the 80s, you're being preachy. Talk about violence against women and you're sexist because you fail to recognize that women's lives are secondary to men's. Guess what? This feminist doesn't give a rat's ass what you think about me. If your support for equal rights depends on how softly someone speaks to you, that tells me you don't support basic human rights at all. The sexists and misogynists can piss off back to the 15th century where they belong. I will continue to live in the 21st century.

If You've Ever Wondered What Happens To Kids After They're Rescued From Sex Trafficking, Watch This

Toon: Wayne LaPierre’s Tears by Bill Day

The so-called "double standard"

How many have heard misogynists complain that there is a double-standard, that if a man said the same thing a woman says about him something horrible would happen? So what would happen if a man mocked a woman? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not only are they able to mock with impunity, they can insult and describe women as "sluts," "bitches," and "whores" with absolutely no repercussions, not even jury hides. Consider for a minute that the English language contains no similar insult for men. There is no gender specific term to insult a man's sexuality, to demean him as nothing but an object of sex, or to refer to him as less than human--a "bitch," a female dog.

Let's examine the true double standard. Look at the recent hide in this group for "misandry": a series of cartoons that make no mention of men as a whole, a particular group of DUers, or an individual member. Whereas calling women "attention whores" and "sluts" is allowed to stand. "Bitch" has become part of the common vernacular in English. The thoughtless tell us it means the words aren't sexist, when in fact it shows that misogyny is so deeply ingrained in American culture than too many are accustomed to cavalier, daily degradation of women.

The male persecution complex is entirely divorced from reality. It shows absolutely no understanding of history, anthropology, sociology, or any contemporary mode of analysis. Some decry the fact that feminists engage in "sociological analysis." Higher education is indeed a liberal conspiracy that might one day dislodge white male privilege. That is why education is crucial to empowerment. But some wedded to the past century--or even the 19th--prefer to avoid thinking altogether. How else could anyone so mindlessly maintain a view of the world--male exploitation at the hands of female privilege--entirely divorced from reality? This argument is the hallmark of extreme right-wing Men's Rights Association (MRA. or as I prefer to call them, MRAsma) dogma. Women's rights oppress men. Our efforts to achieve equality--whether political, economic, social, or cultural--are themselves seen as oppressive. MRAsmas see male privilege as entirely natural, so much so they see any challenge to it an attack on their very being, prompting them to lash out.

So yes, it's horrible that women's struggles have allowed us to participate in the public sphere, that we are able to enter the work force and earn 77 cents on the dollar to a man. It's economically unfair that many women use more medical resources than men and that agencies can't charge us more because our diabolical wombs give birth to babies. Somehow the fact that they are also the children of men entirely escapes the attention of those who whine about women taking up disproportionate medical resources. So yeah, "fuck every last one" of us. The hell with us for having the nerve to occupy the same planet with men and propagate the continuation of the human species. And mostly, fuck us for thinking we have the audacity to voice opinions. There is nothing MRAsmas hate more than women who disagree with them in public. The fact we think we deserve to be treated as actual human beings makes us "evil." The only good woman recognizes her inherent inferiority and doesn't let on the fact she reads or thinks. She lets you pretend you are actually smart because it's our job to prop up fragile egos. When we don't, we are "evil, dark, and whiny."

New Poll: 94% of Americans support background checks

So it turns out that pro-gun proponents don't really support background checks after all

Many of them oppose them and make false claims that all gun sales already go through background checks in an effort to deter people from acting. If that were true, why would the NRA devote so much money into defeating background check bills?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=131721

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172131721

BTW, please click on the second link to accept the challenge about calling your representatives to demand expanded background check legislation.

Most is not all

It's amazing how you avoid reading any newspapers and magazines that show how people buy guns without background checks all the time. You know they do. The fact is that is exactly how you want it.

This is a colossal waste of time, like every discussion with you. So now you're on record opposing any and all background check legislation by insisting it isn't necessary. I knew you were spinning a big one to Loudly yesterday. I'm through with you.

Anyone who wants verification of your denial of evidence about gun trafficking to Mexico and federal research on guns can check my journal a few months back and entries will lead to those discussions. Here we have more evidence of your denials of reality.

If all gun sales already were subject to background checks, why would the NRA devote so much money to defeating background check legislation?

What are you going to do this week to support expanded background checks?