hydroacetylene
No bio...
User ID: 128
To be clear, 'sometimes priests wind up visiting prostitutes' was a known problem among the hierarchy, and most reports of sex abuse were buried by writing it off as this- despite the victims not being whores, and not being suspected of being them either. In the environment of the late twentieth century RCC(which had extremely lax and loose disciplinary standards) this was dealt with through 'rehabilitative justice', just like clerical alcoholism(rates are shockingly high)- and of course the extremely lax disciplinary environment in place doesn't exactly push towards rehabilitation actually working.
One of the main innovations on abuse response was to report to the police before opening a case(which you can cover up by miscategorizing). The police don't particularly care about prostitution; this is pretty low priority. But they do care about raping teenaged boys.
I don't have data to hand right now, but generally speaking liberal/progressive sections of the church have had a worse record about this than conservative/trad sections of the church, with some exceptions(eg Fr Maciel). The SSPX adopted the policy of 'report to the police first, then investigate internally after' long before anyone else, Benedict was the recent pope with the toughest record on sex abusers, etc.
To be clear, sex abuse in religious organizations is basically a solved problem and 'bringing in a bunch of left wing activists' isn't the solution. It's-
- Everyone involved loses their job in case of a coverup. Everyone who conceivably knew and didn't report gets fired, regardless of their level in the organization, regardless of peripherality, etc.
- Everyone is trained as a state mandated reporter.
- Chaperoning requirements and parental involvements have consistent policies and those policies aren't stupid. You also have common sense checks about who gets to be involved as a volunteer(eg checking sex offender registries).
Catholic priests before the 2003 reforms(which cut clerical sex abuse cases down to a rounding error) did have near unlimited access to kids for enormous amounts of time, often long stretches of time.
It's not really 'grooming' it's these women not getting the relationship they want after sleeping with him. Right wing leaders being pressured to follow through on (even implied)relationship promises more often is probably a big part of having fewer sex scandals.
I mean it may also just be having good story lines. Everyone seems to like japanese cartoons; when the French(with their own very robust culture making apparatus which is different from our own) gave their youths a stipend for cultural materials they spent it on manga.
The Ukrainian state is politically closer to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, which runs the other successful post-Soviet revival of Christianity and would like to suppress all Eastern Orthodox groups for heresy, but for realpolitik reasons settles for aiming the state against the more Russia-leaning ones while it slowly outbreeds the rest of Ukraine.
Women were not property in the USA, 1955(a recent TFR peak), and have never been legally property in this country.
Indeed, that 1% will mostly hoist themselves on their own petard(sheltered religious girls dating players, uh, wind up regretting their choices) and all of their peers will know this.
The government by and large does follow through on it's promises to soldiers.
I mean traditional societies had men leaving Ophelia as a recurring motif- it happened occasionally.
That tension is pretty explicit; some of our trad posters will say essentially just this, and then in the next breath call Sloot a sexist.
Excuse me, I call Sloot a misogynist. There is a difference.
Men are beneficent to women because of civilization; we don't live in a might makes right world where the weak suffer what they must. I mean we could, but we would be unable to maintain running water and colour TVs and microwaves and all those nice benefits of civilization. Resenting this beneficence specifically towards women(yes, many women are trashy, self absorbed etc) is misogynistic. Noting that they need it is I guess technically sexism, but it's a justified sexism. Sort of like how I guess you could term it paedophobia or something equally ridiculous to argue that 5 year olds shouldn't have driving licenses, but the retort to that isn't playing definitional games or getting mad at some poor kindergartners for not being able to drive. It's what we were already doing.
I mean we're also leaving out the denominator- there's a lot of people(citation needed). It doesn't seem difficult to believe that this might happen occasionally even if all of those things are rare.
Except- as I've pointed out before- feminism is not a movement for women's interests writ large. It is a movement for a narrow subset of women's interests- those of urban, educated, professional-class working women. Not for all working women- feminism doesn't generally care much about the interests of, say, women in the military, or juanita the hotel room cleaner, or whatever. Not non-working women, no matter how educated, wealthy, and empowered they are- feminists lose their minds over any proposal to help SAHMs.
The rape feminists get conspicuously upset about illustrates this principle well- did you know women in the military experience sexual assault at very high rates? I bet not, feminists were too busy telling you about women in college being raped at something approaching, but not equaling, the rate of their non-college peers. The feminist redefinition of 'abuse' into petty BS is another good example; this is not a movement for the women who might actually get knocked around by their alcoholic husbands, as tragic as such cases may be, feminists have other women to care about.
Afghanistan, like North Korea, far underperforms its national average IQ for governance related reasons. So, for that matter, does Iran.
They wanted access to the boy scouts because the girl scouts suck, and they're seemingly pretty happy with the gender-segregated compromise. They may not be championing team sports but they're more than happy to point to them as good when the situation calls for it, and they aren't complaining vocally about it either.
The manosphere complaints are taken seriously by the powers that be for the reasons I just outlined, and not for 'protecting women and girls' reasons. That's BS, tPtb don't care about that- see also, Weinstein. 'Protecting women and girls' is, however, a potent meme for getting nice, middle class moms onboard, and you cannot run a campaign of adolescent-targeted censorship without parents, China is failing at it let alone the west.
While yes, feminism is running a very similar campaign with very similar effects towards girls and young women, that's completely true. I'm not claiming there's not a double standard here, but the powers that be are also very concerned about lower class defections from feminism resulting in shit they have to eat the bill for(like teen pregnancy). That's why the FLDS got raided despite not really having child welfare concerns(Texas CPS basically said they couldn't find a reason, and nobody likes the FLDS)- because they're all doing welfare fraud without engaging in the appropriate political machinery. Like it or not, lower class defections from feminism tend not to wind up as happy 50's larping stepford due to the reactionary impulse not itself providing any alternative to feminism. Organized groups with some alternative lifestyle who either support themselves or form political machines to cover their welfare fraud? Anglosphere governments don't really care all that much.
I mean have you seen this admin communicate with the public, like in general?
Middle eastern governments in 2011 were likely much worse at bullying social media companies than first world governments in 2020.
Literally, afghans are persians. Their main language is a dialect of persian. Literal, actual, identical to the ones in Iran persians are the second biggest ethnic group, Pashtuns(the largest) are another persian ethnic group.
So what is the problem with the manosphere? That it spreads dangerous lies and radicalises young men into subjugating and even killing women? Or that the rhetoric makes women look bad?
Neither of those things. The manosphere Is Problematic because it convinces young men to get off the path of contributing to society in the way that society wants men to contribute to it, when it is easiest to get started on that path of filling the male role in society. Yes, feminism does the same thing for women and the double standard exists, but two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, there are legitimate issues the manosphere points to- just like feminism, which really did call out some bad stuff- but most of it is whining and secession from public contribution. Society needs young men to study for career skills, work hard, join the army, etc. Young male activities which seem pointless but which society is largely pro(such as team sports) largely do push towards these goals at least somewhat.
I mean why would illegals lie about citizenship on a survey? They’ll just not take it. Ain’t nothing suspicious in not having time for a survey.
merely delayed until a secure bio-lab can be constructed in a heliocentric orbit away from earth.
We can build a bio lab on a disused container ship parked in the middle of the Pacific Ocean right now if we want to, and for all practical purposes thats pretty similar.
?? These were the people pushing for hard lockdowns during the China virus freak out.
Of course, Ukraine isn’t queer.
- Prev
- Next

AI and 1-800-petmeds is getting increasingly popular as a recommendation at the bow range, but those people are at the far end of, uh, mistrusting institutions.
More options
Context Copy link