Women's liberation movement Puns

In the 60’s and 70’s women fought for equal rights and greater personal freedom. It was a decades-long, difficult fight that allowed us to gain the right to vote. It’s been an ongoing fight even since then.

Currently, our rights and reproductive freedom are under threat. I feel as though we are being called on to stand up again. We cannot sit here and watch, and allow this to happen. The women who have come before us have given us the freedoms we have today. Some gave their lives for it. We must stand together for them, for the futures of ourselves, and for the future of young women. We must honor each other and our history. We cannot allow men to control women’s bodies. We deserve choice. We deserve the same level of freedom men have.

We need to organize a peaceful protest in DC. We can’t put our heads in the sand. We can’t allow the government to erase our history and the hard work of our predecessors. We need speakers, a location to organize and discuss, and permitting. We need to come together now before it’s more difficult. Roe v. Wade is under threat. Women’s lives and rights to freedom are under threat.

Let’s use this thread as a way to discuss concerns and ideas to make this happen. A FB group? An independent subreddit? How do we best gather the ideas of these women and present it?

Are you in? If not us, who else?

Hi guys, I am trying to understand more about the Australian Women's Movement and the rise of activism after the 1948 UN Declaration, but also how the Women's Movement actually excluded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women from the debate and disregarded all the issues they experienced, such as violence and lack of support.

Any insights would be very helpful.

Thanks

What can I do to help and be an ally to them?

I am not very educated in history subject. I am doing some research for a project.

So more often than not I see this sub as well as other unrelated subs being spammed with questions such as "what has the feminist movement done for men's rights?" or "how are feminists fighing to better the rights of men?" coming from disgruntled men.

I was wondering whether that phenomenon goes both ways and do women/feminists interject themselves into men's rights/liberation movements to make the conversation about them? I am asking because I usually do not visit those subs because they are often very toxic places (with the notable exception of Mens Liberation) and was wondering whether those of you who do have seen the same narrative coming from women.

If it does not happen, do you think this also speaks to patriarchy and male entintlement - this urge to make yourself, as a man, a centre of every conversation, including those which are specifically designed not to be focused on you?

Came across an old thread where someone was claiming this but it sounds ridiculous to me. Some of the examples the commenter (who said they researched womens sexual liberation and obtained a degree in history) gave were:

>Gave them a platform essentially

>Normalized sexy pics/underwear modeling

>Discouraged men from shaming women who express their sexuality

>Women begged to be featured in playboy after it took off Still do, it’s an honor to many women and they fight for it

>He invented a career path for many women

The author continues, "This was from an August, 1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office."

"Within several years, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were pumping millions into women's studies programs on campus."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/COINTELPRO_Paranoia.html

The first women's studies course was founded by a woman (Sally Miller Gearhart) who literally believed that males should be reduced to ten percent of the population. Yeaaaaah, I don't think that would have turned out quite like she imagined.

I came across this essay while reading a piece by rich British feminist Laurie Penny after her attending Occupy Wall Street.

She deigned to sit in on a panel and was shocked to observe that all three people on the panel were white males. Refusing to let this injustice go unchecked, she stood up and castigated all three men. It was an act of righteousness on par with Natalie Portman's condemnation of the film directors (all of them white males) who were nominated for best picture that year at the Oscars.

The hullabaloo arose between media critic Mark Crispin Miller and Laurie Penny; Mark claimed that the promotion of some ID politics may have been a way of "balkanizing the left." Penny wasn't pleased.

The Ford Foundation was of course historically linked with CIA, to the point where it became a joke. And there was even a CBS special (or was it ABC? I forget) featuring Mike Wallace where he tracked down all of these strange companies that linked CIA and various "non-profit" foundations. According to CIA whistleblower Philip Agee, the mood at CIA was grim after Wallace's report. They all felt down in the dumps.

They needn't have worried. A few months go by and people will forget. Just like they forgot about Gloria Steinem being a witting CIA asset.

As to the overall point, yes of course the feminist movement is a divide and conquer strategy. At least that's why billionaire men fund it.

Did Black Americans feel like the other Liberation movements "unfairly piggybacked" off the Civil Rights Movement?

What was the response of more conservative factions of the Black Civil Rights Movement to the sexual and gay liberation movements?

What was the relationship between socially conservative black Americans/"the Black Church" and Gay Black Americans by the time of Gay Lib movement?

#MeToo and especially this hearing on Kavanaugh is signaling the end of women's liberation. If the mear accusation of a drunken 15 year old high-school girl can ruin your life and career then there will be significant backlash against all of the "Progress" the left has made to push for gender equity/equality. I know personally that I will not be sacrificing my sons to social situations where they will be put into unnecessary risk of their futures if they do anything of government or social significance. The lefts continued push of sexual allegations to achieve their political ends has caused the need for more traditional living and social interactions where we can reasonably guard against such possibilities in the future. We no longer have the luxury of living in a socially liberal sexually liberated society. It is an inherent hazard to our children and their future.

Thomas Dewey actually wins the Presidency in 1948, as a progressive internationalist Republican, as he was widely expected to. ("Dewey Beats Truman": Truman retaining the Presidency was as much a shock in 1948 as Trump winning in 2016!) His VP was even more progressive Earl Warren, ex-governor of California (who, interestingly, won the governorship of California twice after winning both the Democratic and Republican primaries!), and -- in OTL -- Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, starting in 1953. So far -- so good: progressive Republicans win the Presidency in 1948.

Now, starting in 1950, trouble begins. North Korea invades South Korea, and President Dewey -- needing to burnish his nationalist credentials -- makes the mistake of rushing the US to war, without the United Nations, egged on, in part, by red-baiter freshman Representative Richard Nixon in the House and reactionary alcoholic Joseph McCarthy in the Senate. The war goes badly, dragging through the 1952 elections -- although Dewey and Warren manage to hang on to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. A grim mood settles over the nation as the war drags on.

Then -- on March 1, 1954

-- the shit hits the fan. A hitherto unknown group of Puerto Rican nationalists manage to ambush President Dewey's motorcade, as he was leaving the White House for a speech, killing him, while -- at the same time -- another group storms Blair House, killing the VP as well. The nation reacts with grief -- and fury! An ugly rumor sweeps through the polity, encouraged by reactionaries, that the Soviet Union was actually behind the assassinations. With the recent ascendency of scary enforcer Beria to the ruling position -- he'd recently had to put down a coup attempt of his own by the anti-Revolutionary traitor Khrushchev -- it seems completely plausible: the Kremlin's bland denial of any role in the twin assassinations is roundly discounted.

For the first time since the founding of the Republic, a Speaker of the House

-- who "supports the conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats, especially on opposing labor unions" -- ascends to the Presidency. Needless to say, he's prett

The top post on this sub right now is complete nonsense, there are no recent posts on r/vegan talking about KFC with more than 12 upvotes. People with low incomes, busy schedules or people who live in a food desert tend to rely on fast food. We should embrace corporations adapting their menus to be more vegan friendly. People learn through experience and omnivores seeing and trying vegan items on menus as well as seeing the vegan movement around them grow will be radicalizing and push more people our direction.

Obviously it doesn’t make the business suddenly ethical, but Walmart, Kroger, Meijer, Costco, Whole Foods etc, all sell meat and animal products and contribute to the animal holocaust too. Do we shame vegans for shopping at those places too? Of course not, that would be ridiculous and counter productive. The world isn’t black and white and just because corporations don’t make a complete U-turn and immediately eliminate animal exploitation from their business doesn’t mean we should condemn vegans who eat the one vegan option that a company initially introduces.

Before anyone comes at me, I haven’t eaten at KFC In over 15 years and the only fast food I eat is the occasional Taco Bell. That doesn’t mean I’m going to turn a blind eye to classist gatekeeping.

Just wondering. I’ve seen this sub change in the past 3 years and I’m honestly curious to see where members stand. For transparency, I am and believe it is a valid and worthy movement that will bring a lot of acceptance and healing to society. Feel free to ask me questions and clarification below, but I will not respond to disrespect! I absolutely respect skepticism and curiosity though! I will not dislike this sub if the poll is majority saying no as I expect that as it is the dominant stance in society.

View Poll

So I understand the main gist of TWL but there were a few things I'm not sure where they'd fall in here. When people say all men are oppressors, does that include gay men, asexual men, or trans women?

Also, how does lesbians fall in here? I am guessing well, what about asexual women? And trans men?

Also when it comes to something like a rich white woman refusing a poor black man service, is he still oppressing her while she discriminates against him?

I have so many grey edge cases where I am not sure things would fall. Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.

Hi guys, I am trying to understand more about the Australian Women's Movement and the rise of activism after the 1948 UN Declaration, but also how the Women's Movement actually excluded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women from the debate and disregarded all the issues they experienced, such as violence and lack of support.

Any insights would be very helpful.

Thanks

Came across an old thread where someone was claiming this but it sounds ridiculous to me. Some of the examples the commenter (who said they researched womens sexual liberation and obtained a degree in history) gave were:

>Gave them a platform essentially

>Normalized sexy pics/underwear modeling

>Discouraged men from shaming women who express their sexuality

>Women begged to be featured in playboy after it took off Still do, it’s an honor to many women and they fight for it

>He invented a career path for many women