BobDylan

Well V., one thing's for sure, you win the prize for being the most idealistic of all of us here. I hope your aims come true in the future. Happy NY....

Thanks for the backing. I feel your pain about the obnoxious hiking group member, tho I've been guilty of that sometimes myself, letting my passion for an issue overcome my interest in reading the room and letting others enjoy their wish to attend to something more appealing to them. As for people who relish in getting on your case and personally judging and attacking you for simply not living up to their own ridiculously strict standards for how everyone should live or behave, my personal pet peeve is the PC speech code warriors I encounter at times, who obviously only care about their PC speech codes, rather than economic justice or any other progressive policies. Those people love to swoop in and bash anyone they catch saying anything politically incorrect, because it makes them feel morally superior, to the point where it no longer matters if the speaker is saying the obvious truth, because their speech doesn't fit strict PC code, so they feel free to disregard any truth or honesty to the point or content shared by the politically incorrect speaker. Call me crazy, but the truth should still count for something, rather than PC speech codes being the sole substitute or virtue in place of it. It feels annoying and alienating, when they care more about their speech codes, than about the motives or intent of the speaker who accidentally violates their speech codes.. As for your lifestyle, it sounds to me like you are doing the best anyone could for your means, same as most of us, in living an honest and humane life, so you deserve for people to get off your back..

I get that. but right now we are fighting a present battle against fascism, that if lost, will end any chance at ever dealing with climate change in the future. Time is about running out on both of those fronts, I get that... And to win either of those wars, we will need class solidarity, of the 99% against the 1%...

I am a lifelong carnivore, tho in my older age I purposely eat a lot less red meat, and a lot more fish than I used to eat. I see the issue of vegans and vegetarians trying to change carnivores as something that is very unlikely to work, on any great or near term scale, so while I applaud their personal changes and choices, that have improved their own health and lessened their environmental footprint and helped them feel increased integrity and moral pureness, this needs to be more of a back burner issue in the political and culture wars these days. Because it's really going to alienate the working class and poor Americans who we need as allies. I see this as having or becoming the same sort of wedge issue as abortion has long been, only in this case, lower class Americans are likely to see it as higher educated, more privileged members of the elite telling them how to live their personal lives, in this case, telling them what is acceptable to eat or not. And one thing I've learned is that most Americans hate people who see them as their betters, telling them what to do. Every time, they only end up feeling resentful and wanting to lash back at those members of the supposed better class. Which is a big part of why we got THE LYIN' KING. So I advise against adding fuel to the fire of the class war, as far as alienating those who are or should be our class allies, in the war against the rich and corporations, who are everyone's real enemies in it. I know some lefties will see this as selfish on my part, but I think it's simply being pragmatic..

As for the women on this site that didn't speak up about your point regarding women who support the patriarchy, right on with that one as well. It's been frustrating for me to see, even on left leaning sites like reddit, that that there appear to be a lot of women in America that, despite all the advances in feminism during our lifetimes, seem to only practice a rather self-serving and selective form of feminism, where they only apply it to advancing their own personal agendas or self advantage, as well as reflexively siding with their gender in any online discussions of gender politics or the dating game, while choosing not to take any public stands on behalf of other women in general, esp. if it might cost them anything, including flack from men or other women with online forums. I agree, very disappointing to see... I've heard some interesting theories on that, such as that since women are an oppressed minority in America, even these days, many women choose to feel that qualifies the whole gender for a pass on ever being criticized in general, for general or common behavior, in the dating game or gender politics, as well as even criticism about specific women who behave badly, in the dating game or in public life. And that too frustrates me, as it seems to be dishonest and unfair. We are all individuals, yes, but we also all have our individual truths, based on our own experiences, which deserve as much consideration, respect, and right to be believed as honest, true and valid, as anyone else's, when there is no evidence to the contrary for that individual. So to dismiss the truth of a man stating his criticisms of general or common behavior, as well as bad individual behavior of the opposite sex, just because he belongs to the higher status gender, is unfair and dishonest, and contributes nothing to truth or better relations between the genders. No member of any group, should be invalidated or told to shut up and not critique anything, just because of their group membership, as that is unfair and unconstructive, when it comes to seeking the truth and improving society.. unless of course, they're a Trumper or a Nazi, lol...

As usual, mac, you nail a lot of things, and quite eloquently, besides much more concisely than me. I too, would welcome a Gender Politics and even a forum on the dating game itself, even tho I'm well aware that you've resigned from said game. It might be useful for the few dozen members here who have already completed dating profiles for the LHC, and also give them a way, outside of reddit, or even FB, to dialogue with each other, ideally providing encouragement, moral support, and advice on how to navigate the dating game these days, both in red and blue states. At the same time, I know and realize from experience with other online forums, that such forums as dating and gender politics, can become very explosive and conflictual, so in the end that would be V.'s call, as to whether he would want to end up moderating it or take the risk of having those discussions on this site. But I would also hope and like to think, that maybe on a site like this, where by definition the members would seem to value fairness, honesty, and respect much more than the other half of America that is red and loyal only to THE LYIN' KING and the right wing view of things, where empathy is weak and stupid and lying is shameless and justified at all times, we might be able to actually do better than the way I've seen men and women treat each other in those forums of the two topics, on other sites. Because even on reddit, which does lean left, it always seemed like most people, both men and women, cared more about being right and siding with their own gender, than actually trying to learn something and seek truth over some temporary emotional win over the other gender, etc.. Agree with you on the 50% stat of American men with toxic masculinity, they tend to get more notice and publicity..

I agree V., most men do deserve the criticism and blame, altho I honestly think I don't deserve it as much, and I have the longtime record of female, platonic friends, to back it up, since they all seemed to think I was about as pro feminist and had way less toxic masculinity than other men. I agree that a separate thread for this might be useful..

Yeah, sounds like the daily dose of depressing news. We really do seem to be 🍆>🐱ed, as far as turning things around. The Dems and corporate media are clearly not going to help us.. Pelosi, Schumer and Jeffries all need to be so gone and replaced with leaders who actually care and want to fight the Repubs..

I watched the video of Galloway on the Daily Show. It was very interesting and impressive, lots to agree with. As far as the radio show about misogyny, I agree with you, any panel that unbalanced gender wise is not going to be that honest or fair about such an issue. The evidence of that is obvious anytime you see a discussion of gender issues on the internet, on social discussion sites like reddit, for example, where you see so much brigading and hardened attitudes against the other gender whenever one gender outnumbers the other in a discussion. People become overly emboldened and overconfident about their rightness compared to the other gender, as soon as they feel they've got the superior numbers supporting them in the discussion, instead of practicing humility and empathy towards the other gender.. The audio podcast of the radio show was too long, almost an hour so I listened to the first several minutes of it, but stopped after that, since it wasn't really saying anything new I hadn't heard or read before online. For example, one point was made by a female panelist, that it was up to men to stand up to other men about misogynist behavior or speech. Well, I'd seen that one a lot of times on internet forum discussions, and it doesn't really have much practical application, as in my experience and that of other men who are pro feminist, the sort of men who need to be confronted, simply self select and either avoid socializing with men like me, who they know would call them on their 💩, or they simply self censor when around us and hide who they really are and what they think. So it's just one of many ideas that sound good in theory and feel satisfying to propose as a solution, but doesn't really hold water in reality... And racial bigots are much the same way, tho nowadays they are more open and uninhibited about it due to THE LYIN' KING acting as a role model and permission figure for them..

Funny and amazing, how that MAGA cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics work..

and then turn around and gripe about how they don't get the partners or leaders they want. I am surprised that you weren't getting the interest from men on dating sites, without making the first move yourself, since your profile pic would suggest your looks are at least average for women your age, if not better. I have heard that on dating sites, most women with average looks or better get lots of interest, even if most of it is unwanted and from scammers, players just looking for sex, or fake profiles, etc. But I've also heard from plenty of women in my local dating pool, including women I ended up meeting in person or dating, who said the same thing as you, as far as not getting much interest from men on dating sites. And my hunch is that for those women, same as myself in the online dating game, it's because they are a mismatch for their local dating pool, on cultural and lifestyle traits, compared to the opposite gender that makes up the majority of singles in their target age range. In my local dating pool, for example, if you don't love Jesus and country music, lean right or Repub in politics, and have kids, family that you are close to, aren't really big on social drinking, you have multiple red flags that will disqualify you with the vast majority of women in my age group. You may fall into the same category with your local online dating pool. Many people online are quick to assume the problem is with the individual single that struggles in the dating game, rather than the local gender ratios for singles on dating sites, or their mismatch with the majority of their local online dating pool.. I'm also assuming that on your dating profiles, outside of this site, that you include other pics than just your one here, including at least one full body shot pic. That seems to be the norm for dating profiles, of both genders, if you want interest from singles. As for "first dates" from dating sites, I just call them meet and greets, since they rarely go anywhere after that....

Unfortunately, Bumble removed the requirement that women message men first. That happened about a year or so ago, because they found the majority of their female customers weren't interested in doing so, so they made the change to save their revenues and membership numbers, tho their stock price still suffered from this problem. I find your strong and honest feminism refreshing, tho I find that sort of thing rare among the single women my age where I live. Probably because I live in a red state in a very traditional-minded, conservative region, the midwestern US. Glad you're raising your sons in a progressive way that encourages them to be open-minded. I see so much misogyny and misandry, on the part of the respective genders, both where I live and online in social discussion forums. Also glad that you were pro active and independent about your online dating habits, by approaching men first, rather than the conventional norm for women of waiting for men to message or approach them first on dating sites, as that method seems to almost always result in the women only getting interest from scammers, players, and men who are incompatible, etc. Why not act like we men have had to do since before I was born, namely choosing who we want or feel compatible with, and making the approach ourselves, knowing that we will usually be rejected? But at least when we aren't rejected, we make a connection with someone we want, rather than just settling for someone we don't really want, just because they approached us first. It feels like a parallel, at least for me, to voting. Why keep voting for the lesser evil, esp., in primary elections, instead of voting our hopes and true choices, so at least we are voting for something or someone we believe in or truly want? I have little respect for either group, singles who choose to wait on being approached by the other gender, or voters who keep voting for lesser evil candidates,

I can believe the validity of the stat, but at the same time I can also understand how the % of even men my age, who are single, is probably way lower than it was decades ago. Things have changed greatly in the landscape of the dating game, since the previous century. Women have also greatly changed in their attitudes and behavior towards men in the dating game. I would also be interested in the specifics of what circumstances are being studied in the research that was cited. Are they talking about young men cold approaching women in public, or does the stat cover also circumstances such as online dating or asking a woman out on a date where they are both already in proximity or contact, such as sharing a workplace or attending the same school, etc. ? I can tell you that nowadays almost no men do cold approaches anymore to women, at any age, in public with strangers, unless it's a bar environment or a dance club. Because outside of those situations the inhibitions are too great for the men and also the assumption is that most women want to be left alone and not hit on by stranger men at these other public situations. I recently saw an amusing and thought provoking comment on reddit, that said that if women run across a man they find attractive and interesting, in a romantic way, they should " put on their big girl pants and go talk to him, adopting the spirit of their grandmother or great grandmother, who would drop a handkerchief to get the man's attention. Like they did back then, when the sexes would go thru their accepted, elaborate rituals of courting and dating etiquette". Of course, I can tell you from experience, that almost no women will ever follow that advice, because they both know from talking to men who tell them that rarely do cold approaches work for men, at least the average looking ones, and also that they have no intention of experiencing the rejection and embarrassment that men encounter with doing cold approaches. And yet, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that almost all men would at least be flattered and respond positively and appropriately to being cold approached by women, after recovering from the initial shock, even if they were not reciprocally interested in dating the woman.. One thing is certain, a society in which a large % of young men are asexual and socially isolated or alienated from women, is not a good thing for said society, same as the whole incel culture these days. It only corrodes our society..

No surprise. It's THE LYIN' KING distracting from the Epstein files releases this week..

MLK was right in saying things were going in the right direction, but since the 1970s, things have been getting worse, and many of the advances in social progress have been reversed, due to reactionary politics, but also due to the oligarchs and corporations taking and gaining much greater power than they had back in MLK's time. The globalization of the world's economy has been one factor, another is the multinational corporations taking complete control of the Dem Party, which left unions and workers with no competing or balancing power to the Repub Party. And since Americans and their electoral system are so resistant to using third parties to advance political goals, we have been stuck in a one way class war for the last several decades, where only the rich and corporations are fighting it, and the rest of us are left defenseless and nobody advancing our cause, at least no one with any real power in the fed govt.. Believe it or not, I've not given up, even tho I have little hope left these days. But most Americans do seem to have given up, whether it's about democracy, or about the system ever working fairly or for them again, and as long as that's the case, we are not going to ever get out of this hole. I think it's going to take a charismatic, progressive leader, who can somehow avoid being assassinated like so many were in the 60s, and I just don't see that happening soon enough to save us. Nor do I see the American people rising up and overthrowing the corrupt regime, like they recently did in Bulgaria. We seem to have lost our solidarity and revolutionary spirit too much to ever do that..

I think we all know the answer is the latter one, that not only would the Watergate story, nor the Pentagon Papers being published, ever happen. And even if they did, the Repub Party would never agree to impeach a president of their own party, as they were ready to do to Nixon, before he resigned in disgrace. Bottom line is, things have changed greatly since the 1970s, and mostly for the worse, when it comes to power and accountability for the rich and powerful.. Another thing, in the 1970s, most of the large newspapers were family-owned, and much more ethical and accountable to their readers, compared to now..

You nailed the essence of it, mac. We are all human, but not all of us are humane....

Call me cynical, but some people are just plain selfish and wicked, so that even if we had a socialist utopia, like I would prefer we have, there would still be a need for laws, cops and government, esp. government.... The opposite of my desired utopia, is some sort of post apocalyptic world, like the Walking Dead, universe, where everything is chaos and everything is about the strongest and most ruthless having all the power and being completely free to prey on the weaker people who are still left.. I would frankly rather be dead, than going on and trying to survive and suffer in such a world..

The right wing co-worker is a 🍆, who thinks like an idiot, but you already knew that... Most of us never need welfare programs and many of us never live long enough to collect Social Security, but both programs are necessary, because they make for a more humane and secure society, which benefits us all. But you can never get a conservative to accept that, because they are all about selfishness, immaturity, and greed...

I'll split the difference with you, mac. I ended up owning a home, a condo apt., most I ever wanted. But never wanted to be a parent and so I ended up childfree.. Even as a childfree adult, I have always supported having good and safe schools for everyone's kids, simply because they all deserve it and in the end it benefits all of us, including those without kids, by promoting higher property values and producing better citizens...

Whether Repubs and conservatives still have a soul or not, may be debateable. What seems to be indisputeable tho, is that they have zero empathy for anyone different from them, who is not a member of their tribe, while on the other hand, liberals will gladly extend all the same rights and privileges to them that we have, because we believe in equal rights and fair treatment for all. Their base attitude is that only white people who share their religion, politics, and sexual orientation/identity, deserve the same rights and privileges as them.. In other words, they lack a spirit of generosity and fairness that we have.. And they also don't really believe in democracy for all, but in a hierachical system where their group has all or most of the power, permanently...

Great episode of TTZ, "Will The Real Martian Please Stand Up?".

Unless it's like that Twilight Zone episode " To Serve Man", lol....

Maybe the superior intelligence of aliens will intervene and save us?

You and me, Peter. I'm not holding my breath that the midterms will actually happen, or that they will be free and fair. And even if the Dems win back the House, as I think they will, as I said elsewhere, they won't get the Senate. So all they will have is the ability to hold oversight hearings and investigate things in the House, with subpeona power. But there is no certainty that anyone from the THE LYIN' KING administration would show up if they subpeana them, because they would suffer no penalty for not showing up. To prosecute them for contempt of congress, for not showing up, the DOJ would have to do that, and it's not going to happen under this administration.. As Jeff Goldblum said in the movie Independence Day, they've got us in checkmate, for at least the next few years..