Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Are you actuality spending your time trawling through Twitter just to find things to get offended by just so you can highlight them and feel invalidated?

You do realize thats the **** that the woke crowd do that winds people up in the first place...?

Don’t know about anyone else, but random stuff gets highlighted for me all the time on Twitter. And I really mean random. All kinds of shit.

Gruffalux wrote: »

Come on. This wins ''woke-ism of the day''

https://twitter.com/toriajayne/status/1349850064978649090?s=20

I’d be all ready to dismiss that as a parody if I didn’t already know a bit about Oger. The only thing that could be questioned is if Oger really tweeted that as it seems to be a screenshot. But some of the actual tweets that I’ve seen by Oger are every bit as batty so it’s believable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AllForIt wrote: »

I see Twitter is issuing 'unsafe link' warnings linked in Twitter posts.

I'm so relieved Twitter is looking out for me in case I get radicalized.

It's a bit late for that

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Don’t know about anyone else, but random stuff gets highlighted for me all the time on Twitter. And I really mean random. All kinds of shit.



I’d be all ready to dismiss that as a parody if I didn’t already know a bit about Oger. The only thing that could be questioned is if Oger really tweeted that as it seems to be a screenshot. But some of the actual tweets that I’ve seen by Oger are every bit as batty so it’s believable.

1 - Fair point, I don't have Twitter so I don't know. But Biko's last three or four points have been Twitter woke-ismd without any discussion or follow-up debate.

2 - Poe's Law was made for **** like this!

One eyed Jack

NIMAN wrote: »

Well if it doesn't win, I wouldn't like to see what beats it.

Well, seeing as it’s the wokeism thread, the science doesn’t matter


Transgender woman is first to be able to breastfeed her baby


But from a legal standpoint, Oger is correct as far as legal rights and protection from discrimination relating to breastfeeding are concerned, in the district of British Columbia in Canada. It’s a purposely vague statement though - it’s true, but an explanation as to why it’s true by providing context would have been helpful. I don’t imagine their intent is to be helpful though, the tweet seems constructed to get a reaction.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’d be all ready to dismiss that as a parody if I didn’t already know a bit about Oger. The only thing that could be questioned is if Oger really tweeted that as it seems to be a screenshot. But some of the actual tweets that I’ve seen by Oger are every bit as batty so it’s believable.

https://twitter.com/MorganeOgerBC/status/1349793464158806016?s=19

The actual tweet ODB. I had to wade through a lot of stinky rude weirdness to find that on Oger's timeline. And it's not even 7 am! In a Saturday!

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, seeing as it’s the wokeism thread, the science doesn’t matter


Transgender woman is first to be able to breastfeed her baby


But from a legal standpoint, Oger is correct as far as legal rights and protection from discrimination relating to breastfeeding are concerned, in the district of British Columbia in Canada. It’s a purposely vague statement though - it’s true, but an explanation as to why it’s true by providing context would have been helpful. I don’t imagine their intent is to be helpful though, the tweet seems constructed to get a reaction.

Myself I don't think that nursing a newborn infant with milk laced with high doses of Domperidone, a drug known to cause fatal cardiac arrhythmias, should be medically permitted in order to facilitate or fulfil some people's gender-affirming fantasies.

CtevenSrowder

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So.... You deliberatey misconsrtrue what Biden said.
I explain it to you (see below)
You accuse me of misconstruing you.
Then you deliberately misconstrue waht Biden said in exactly the same way... for the second time...?





The priority is not people - the priority is his intention.

No matter what way you read he explicitly states he is giving priority to some groups over others (well one other).

Biker79

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No matter what way you read he explicitly states he is giving priority to some groups over others (well one other).

Exactly. If he meant otherwise, he would have made an effort to say so.

Seasoned politicians are never accidentally ambiguous.

Hellokitty1212

Watching the video of Nkencho’s brother giving out - noted I couldn’t stand that fake “yo blud!” accent.

I’m “soooo racist!”

Watching a trailer for a programme with a New Zealand woman. Noted that got on my nerves too. Same woman agreed and mocked it.

Double standards no ???

Incidentally the Caribbean accent leaves me like jelly ... hello Rihanna!!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No matter what way you read he explicitly states he is giving priority to some groups over others (well one other).

I'm beginning to think people can't read English here, or just want to believe something a bit too much.

Leaving this one here. I've explained the use of the word priority twice now, and if people can't be bothered doing the same then there's no point in even reading their rosoinces.

Is there a word to express the opposite if woke while still possessing the ignorance of the woke? It's like antifa being anti-fascist but still being fascist themselves.

CtevenSrowder

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm beginning to think people can't read English here, or just want to believe something a bit too much.

Leaving this one here. I've explained the use of the word priority twice now, and if people can't be bothered doing the same then there's no point in even reading their rosoinces.

Is there a word to express the opposite if woke while still possessing the ignorance of the woke? It's like antifa being anti-fascist but still being fascist themselves.

I read, and read it again. He explicitly states he is giving priority to the named groups.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I swear to God, there are people in here who wound have complained that the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements were purely 'woke' had the timelines been different.

Kivaro

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I swear to God, there are people in here who wound have complained that the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements were purely 'woke' had the timelines been different.

No, there wouldn't have been.
But that doesn't stop the sensitive people from believing there would.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I swear to God, there are people in here who wound have complained that the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements were purely 'woke' had the timelines been different.

Unlikely, since most people here grew up in Ireland at a time when such movements had already gained enough momentum to be socially acceptable, and if anything, would automatically assume the validity of those movements.

The problem I find with your attitude is that you appear to associate all social movements with each other equally, and as such, any criticism/resistance of one, means criticism/resistance to them all.

You're either with us or against us. No middle ground, and little allowance for nuance.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kivaro wrote: »

No, there wouldn't have been.
But that doesn't stop the sensitive people from believing there would.

Ah, yes the old "senstivity" argument. Nothign to do with the fact that people might actually be highlihgting fallacies and errors in thri arguments...?
Nah.... can't be that....

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlikely, since most people here grew up in Ireland at a time when such movements had already gained enough momentum to be socially acceptable, and if anything, would automatically assume the validity of those movements.

Hence my wording, "if the timeslines were different".

The problem I find with your attitude is that you appear to associate all social movements with each other equally, and as such, any criticism/resistance of one, means criticism/resistance to them all.

You're either with us or against us. No middle ground, and little allowance for nuance.

Not at all - there have been many genuinely "woke" sentiments highlighted in this thread and I've agreed some of them.

But equally, some of the sentinents have actually been based on fact and logic, but they get dragged into the mix and the problem is people who are normally intelligent can't seem to tell the difference between woke and a sound social argument. And it's THIS mix and hysteria that the anti-woke crownd seem to scramble for the moment a genuine incident of racism comes in that I'm trying to highlight.

There IS middle ground - but not if people choose to automatically react to a tweet without reading it properly and thinking about it first. ANd there are people on BOTH sides of the debate doing exactly that.

Sometimes something simply isn't woke, in the same way that sometimes something simply isn't racist.

MisterAnarchy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm beginning to think people can't read English here, or just want to believe something a bit too much.

Leaving this one here. I've explained the use of the word priority twice now, and if people can't be bothered doing the same then there's no point in even reading their rosoinces.

Is there a word to express the opposite if woke while still possessing the ignorance of the woke? It's like antifa being anti-fascist but still being fascist themselves.

The main person who can't read English would seem to be Biden.

What he actually said in itself doesn't make much sense .

"Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and finally having equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild."

Perhaps he meant to say

"Our priority will be to ensure that Black, Latino, Asian, Native American owned small businesses, and female-owned businesses, finally have equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild."

Lets say he did, its still virtue signalling.
It is identity politics and it is divisive.

All he had to say is that
"Our priority will be to ensure that every citizen has equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild"

Did Biden need to state ahead of time that he would choose a woman as vice-president? Do candidates typically announce the gender or race of their picks ahead of time?

Biden announced that he was going to choose a woman because he thought it would give him a boost with female voters.

He chose a black female because he thought it would give him a boost with black voters especially female.

For his Presidential Press team, Biden chose an all female team.
Virtue signalling.

The list goes on and on.

What Biden framing his policy shows is that his interests clearly lie in what his indentity politics will do for him, rather than what it will do for the particular groups he mentions.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The main person who can't read English would seem to be Biden.

What he actually said in itself doesn't make much sense .


Perhaps he meant to say


Lets say he did, its still virtue signalling.
It is identity politics and it is divisive.

All he had to say is that
"Our priority will be to ensure that every citizen has equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild"

Did Biden need to state ahead of time that he would choose a woman as vice-president? Do candidates typically announce the gender or race of their picks ahead of time?

Biden announced that he was going to choose a woman because he thought it would give him a boost with female voters.

He chose a black female because he thought it would give him a boost with black voters especially female.

For his Presidential Press team, Biden chose an all female team.
Virtue signalling.

The list goes on and on.

What Biden framing his policy shows is that his interests clearly lie in what his indentity politics will do for him, rather than what it will do for the particular groups he mentions.

I'm not argueing Biden or his previosu statements I'm arguing one sttement on it's merit.

You read "Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses" and at that point stopped reading.

You either missed or choose to ignore the rest of his sentence, which reads, "and giving them equal access."

And I don't care how genuined or sincere or how much a liar he is or you think he is, or how politicians act in general, I'm just going by the statement. That's the only thing I'm talking about.

In more annoying wokeness news..

There's a campaign going to rename the 'gearslutz' music gear forum..

It's like "will ye just fnck off.." at this stage..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hence my wording, "if the timeslines were different".

If the timelines were different, then there would likely be actual widespread injustice to be challenged.

Both my parents were active supporters of feminism throughout the 70s/80s, joining the marches, giving up their limited free time to support the movement. Later, they organised with others for gay rights, and were very vocal in giving equal rights to everyone.

Now, however, they're disgusted with modern feminism, and the activists that exist today. While they recognise that discrimination still happens, they're pragmatic enough to understand that what can be done, has been done... and anything more simply lowers the rights of others. Namely men, in the case of modern feminism.

The times suited the movements. In the past, there was a genuine need for activism, because they did live in an incredibly unfair society. Now, that's not the case, considering the range of laws, rights, and protections that the vast majority of people have available to them.

The point being you can't take away the time from the reputation of the cause. Modern feminism isn't supported by the mainstream population, because most people recognise equality had been reached, and further campaigning simply seeks to elevate women above men, by giving them rights, protections, and supports that aren't available to men. Therefore moving away from equality.

Not at all - there have been many genuinely "woke" sentiments highlighted in this thread and I've agreed some of them.

Sure you have, but then I'll return to my pov that being "woke" means forcing change on others, irrespective of whether there's a valid need for that change, and little consideration for the long-term effects of that change.

But equally, some of the sentinents have actually been based on fact and logic, but they get dragged into the mix and the problem is people who are normally intelligent can't seem to tell the difference between woke and a sound social argument. And it's THIS mix and hysteria that the anti-woke crownd seem to scramble for the moment a genuine incident of racism comes in that I'm trying to highlight.

I don't see genuine social arguments and the "woke" crowd as being even remotely similar, because the woke crowd are crusaders seeking justification for supporting issues that mostly don't need addressing. The push against racism in Ireland is simply encouraging racism to manifest because of the hamfisted aggressive approaches of the woke movement.

There IS middle ground - but not if people choose to automatically react to a tweet without reading it properly and thinking about it first. ANd there are people on BOTH sides of the debate doing exactly that.

Sometimes something simply isn't woke, in the same way that sometimes something simply isn't racist.

Information overload. We're all susceptible to it. We're all somewhat weary of the sheer amount of BS that comes out of the internet, the US, and worse yet, social media.

Let me put it this way. Probably like you, I've been "on the internet" all my adult life. Connected most of the time, and all that. My ability to detect sarcasm died last year. It collapsed against the host of comments either from social media, or the mainstream media, because so much BS comes from both... and I'm hearing it all the time.

I'll be honest.. and say that more than half the time I hear something bizarre, or completely messed up, I expect it to be true. Especially if it's coming out of the US. Doesn't mean I'm going to go online and rant about it.. but that's more because I don't think that kind of lifestyle is healthy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

If the timelines were different, then there would likely be actual widespread injustice to be challenged.

Have you never heard of parallel dimension theory?

Hypothetical situation. My point being: people can not tell the diffeence between "actual" widespread injustice and so-called widespread injustice.

Sure you have, but then I'll return to my pov that being "woke" means forcing change on others, irrespective of whether there's a valid need for that change, and little consideration for the long-term effects of that change.

Fair point, but there's no real force with woke - they just actually do things that force others to change (rightly or wrongly - I believe wrongly in a lot of cases) whereas the anti-woke crowd sit behinf keyboards and do nothing.

I don't see genuine social arguments and the "woke" crowd as being even remotely similar, because the woke crowd are crusaders seeking justification for supporting issues that mostly don't need addressing. The push against racism in Ireland is simply encouraging racism to manifest because of the hamfisted aggressive approaches of the woke movement.

Some minority groups would disagree with you here. The ballet-dancer incident in Berlin would be one example.

Information overload. We're all susceptible to it. We're all somewhat weary of the sheer amount of BS that comes out of the internet, the US, and worse yet, social media.

Let me put it this way. Probably like you, I've been "on the internet" all my adult life. Connected most of the time, and all that. My ability to detect sarcasm died last year. It collapsed against the host of comments either from social media, or the mainstream media, because so much BS comes from both... and I'm hearing it all the time.

I'll be honest.. and say that more than half the time I hear something bizarre, or completely messed up, I expect it to be true. Especially if it's coming out of the US. Doesn't mean I'm going to go online and rant about it.. but that's more because I don't think that kind of lifestyle is healthy.

Here, I garee with you. People don't process the information and that's the downfall. It's quantity over quality.

But again - on both sides. The anti-woke crew are beginning to unintentionally parody the woke crowd purely in tetrms of faux-outrage and "look at me! Look at this bull**** that I just found!"

Biker79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The anti-woke crew are beginning to unintentionally parody the woke crowd purely in tetrms of faux-outrage and "look at me! Look at this bull**** that I just found!"

That equivalence is completely false.

The anti-woke sentiment is a defence of common sense.

Woke is little more than the flourishes of mental illness, and a threat to culture and institutions.

I'll give you an example. A seasoned journalist this morning in the Irish Times wrote

Trump wasn’t wrong about everything. That sort of statement can get a writer into trouble, so needs explanation. And - this shouldn’t need saying - just because someone says some sensible things doesn’t excuse the horrors they inflict on the world on an almost daily basis.

Imagine a seasoned, respected journalist having to pre-emptively defend himself against being cancelled. That's because of Woke.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Have you never heard of parallel dimension theory?

Hypothetical situation. My point being: people can not tell the diffeence between "actual" widespread injustice and so-called widespread injustice.

Sure, but the point remains that you can suggest that people here might be against civil rights under a different timeline, but the same would apply to you.

We have grown up in a society that promotes the belief in equality. We're all affected by it in formal education, from the media, etc.. so it's impossible to say who would or would not believe, since that timeline would have those forces absent.

Fair point, but there's no real force with woke - they just actually do things that force others to change (rightly or wrongly - I believe wrongly in a lot of cases) whereas the anti-woke crowd sit behinf keyboards and do nothing.

Sure there is. People are influenced in their opinions by social media every day. Just as the campaigning, protests, etc which raise public awareness may change the opinions of people who are open to be influenced by such displays. 'People' who may be influenced who can affect decisions regarding policy.

In any case, we've seen decades of "woke" attitudes in US academia, which means that graduates have left after being influenced by their professors/lecturers, who in turn, have brought those ideas/beliefs into their own areas of work/lifestyles.

As for the "anti-woke" crowd, I'd say that, in the area of social media, they can influence others, just as the woke crowd do. And while I don't really think there's a general movement of being anti-woke, there is opposition on individual issues, where the opponents do far more than type at their keyboards. I know many people in Men's Right's organisations, who are very active in seeking to turn public opinion back towards equality.

Some minority groups would disagree with you here. The ballet-dancer incident in Berlin would be one example.

Most minority groups would disagree with me because they have an interest in being seen as victims, and reaping all the benefits that comes from being such.

Here, I garee with you. People don't process the information and that's the downfall. It's quantity over quality.

But again - on both sides. The anti-woke crew are beginning to unintentionally parody the woke crowd purely in tetrms of faux-outrage and "look at me! Look at this bull**** that I just found!"

It depends on who you're talking about. There's the people who have become addicted to the drama that is on the internet or media, and love to express their outrage, gaining social proof/pleasure by doing so with the mob. Sure, many people are like this these days.

At the same time, I find this dismissal of those who oppose woke sentiments, to be rather hypocritical since usually those seeking to dismiss are very quick to support their own causes/crusades. Thankfully, we're seeing a pushback in society against the PC brigade, and woke nonsense...dismissing this pushback is simply more of the type of attitudes that promoted Islamophobia, transphobia, etc regardless of whether there was any reality/logic behind the claims.

COVID

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure you will, but the blame/responsibility won't be placed on Black people. It's happening because of hundreds of other reasons all aimed squarely on how White people have treated them. It's the same with the rate of fatherless families in the US.. it's not a problem to be solved, but an indication of how White people have screwed Black people, and their culture.

Black people are victims. As such, they'll (as a group) never be held accountable or even partially responsible for what's happened. It's always someone else to blame. To say otherwise is victim blaming, and also, in this case, racist.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlikely, since most people here grew up in Ireland at a time when such movements had already gained enough momentum to be socially acceptable, and if anything, would automatically assume the validity of those movements.

The problem I find with your attitude is that you appear to associate all social movements with each other equally, and as such, any criticism/resistance of one, means criticism/resistance to them all.

You're either with us or against us. No middle ground, and little allowance for nuance.

The last line above is true for both sides in this 'wokie' thingy bun fight, save for the word 'nuance' of course, which clearly doesn't belong in this thread at all.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Biker79 wrote: »

That equivalence is completely false.

The anti-woke sentiment is a defence of common sense.

Woke is little more than the flourishes of mental illness, and a threat to culture and institutions.

I'll give you an example. A seasoned journalist this morning in the Irish Times wrote



Imagine a seasoned, respected journalist having to pre-emptively defend himself against being cancelled. That's because of Woke.

Again - I'm not talking about in terms of stance or results, I'm talking about in terms of an absense of informed thought and hysteria.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, but the point remains that you can suggest that people here might be against civil rights under a different timeline, but the same would apply to you.

We have grown up in a society that promotes the belief in equality. We're all affected by it in formal education, from the media, etc.. so it's impossible to say who would or would not believe, since that timeline would have those forces absent.

I'm leaving this here as I've made my point and you seme to be unable to undertsand the phrase "hypothetical situation".

Sure there is. People are influenced in their opinions by social media every day. Just as the campaigning, protests, etc which raise public awareness may change the opinions of people who are open to be influenced by such displays. 'People' who may be influenced who can affect decisions regarding policy.

In any case, we've seen decades of "woke" attitudes in US academia, which means that graduates have left after being influenced by their professors/lecturers, who in turn, have brought those ideas/beliefs into their own areas of work/lifestyles.

As for the "anti-woke" crowd, I'd say that, in the area of social media, they can influence others, just as the woke crowd do. And while I don't really think there's a general movement of being anti-woke, there is opposition on individual issues, where the opponents do far more than type at their keyboards. I know many people in Men's Right's organisations, who are very active in seeking to turn public opinion back towards equality.

Not if this thread is anything to go by - and elsewhere I've seeb people automatically grown and take the contrary viewpoint without thinking.

Most minority groups would disagree with me because they have an interest in being seen as victims, and reaping all the benefits that comes from being such.

Now, are you automatically victim-blaming here or saying this is only true in some situations?

It depends on who you're talking about. There's the people who have become addicted to the drama that is on the internet or media, and love to express their outrage, gaining social proof/pleasure by doing so with the mob. Sure, many people are like this these days.

At the same time, I find this dismissal of those who oppose woke sentiments, to be rather hypocritical since usually those seeking to dismiss are very quick to support their own causes/crusades. Thankfully, we're seeing a pushback in society against the PC brigade, and woke nonsense...dismissing this pushback is simply more of the type of attitudes that promoted Islamophobia, transphobia, etc regardless of whether there was any reality/logic behind the claims.

You seem to think I'm taking a side here - I'm not. I'm not dismissing anything. I'm neitehr woke nor anti-woke. I take each incident on its own merit, research and decide for myself.

You dismess woke as "nonsense" - are you're trying to tell me this is "balanced" and "informed"? I'd agree a substantial protion of it is, but I'd still read the opinion beforehand.

(Or are you saying woke and social injsutcie reporting are two different things, in which case, fair enough)

But my point remains: there are a large number of people on both sides of rhe debate that only enter into the arguments with an absense of informed thought and hysteria. And I'm going to keep saying that until peopleactually read it and stop implying that I'm propmoting woke.

Hellokitty1212

The ultimate in part wokery part closing your eyes and hoping it all goes away....

Woman attacked by three teenagers with knives in Balbriggan. Sees them close up; hears them say (in her words) “run, blood”. Yet there’s no physical description from Gardaí.

Pathetic. It’s not racism to report that three black teenagers attacked a woman.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

If the timelines were different, then there would likely be actual widespread injustice to be challenged.

Both my parents were active supporters of feminism throughout the 70s/80s, joining the marches, giving up their limited free time to support the movement. Later, they organised with others for gay rights, and were very vocal in giving equal rights to everyone.

Now, however, they're disgusted with modern feminism, and the activists that exist today. While they recognise that discrimination still happens, they're pragmatic enough to understand that what can be done, has been done... and anything more simply lowers the rights of others. Namely men, in the case of modern feminism.

Sadly, not really the case in the last few years. I would have agreed with you a few years ago. But we are seeing problems arise over the clash of transgender rights and sex-based rights. A concrete example in the last year is HSE public health literature on cervical cancer not mentioning the word woman once (whilst corresponding literature for male-specific health problems are peppered with the word ‘man’). This was a not insignificant problem (though thankfully it’s been corrected, but not without the campaigners receiving some abuse first). Obfuscatory language on literature that is supposed to be raising awareness of health issues and reaching as many relevant people as possible is unacceptable (it really could be a matter of life or death) and it disproportionately affected one sex.

And I don’t need to get into all the other ways women’s rights on under threat from this issue. There’s a whole thread about it.

But I just wanted to highlight that it’s not true to say that all that can be done has been done. Things don’t stay in stasis. Eternal vigilance is needed. Hard won rights, protections and societal mores that women fought for are under renewed threat. I know a few short years ago, it seemed like many of the aims of feminism had been achieved. But it didn’t take long for those achievements to be attacked.

Interestingly, many modern feminists don’t care about the threat to these rights and don’t care about them being chipped away at. It’s the old skool-style feminists who recognise it.

EmmetSpiceland

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You seem to think I'm taking a side here - I'm not. I'm not dismissing anything. I'm neitehr woke nor anti-woke. I take each incident on its own merit, research and decide for myself.

Sounds pretty “woke” to me, P.

peasant

This was posted elsewhere, but I think it's relevant here considering how the woke brigade are creating conflicts where there was no real issues in the first place, only fabricated ones to pick fights with.

peasant wrote: »

Some good food for thought here:

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Interestingly, many modern feminists don’t care about the threat to these rights and don’t care about them being chipped away at. It’s the old skool-style feminists who recognise it.

Indeed, here's a modern day feminist in action