Scheherazade wrote:Not by any means, the society hostile to women would be the regressive Western rauch culture.
Muslim societies are if anything, over-protective of them - the West is hostile.
Then I take it you reject the notion of ambivalent sexism or don't understand it. That such protection is an active part of such hostility, the two can't be separated, they function in unison. You yourself spoke that the reason that they are protected is because of hostile men.
If there are no hostile men then there's nothing to warrant protection. Thus you implicitly acknowledge that Muslim societies are really or imagined to be hostile to women.
The West is pretty much the same in this regard just to varying degrees less, the same notions apply across countries, hence why I linked the paper showing a general trend of hostile sexism increasing in conjunction with benevolent sexism.
You seem to be implying that the west is simply hostile and the Islamic predominant countries, which is a very vague and vast assortment of nations, are simply protective. This is half truthing a reality in which both are true in both societies in that there is tendency for both benevolent paternalism warranted by hostility towards women.
Control isn't bad in and over itself, calls to modesty improve virtue, and society has a right to control things to the end of preserving virtue.
The West simply 'controls' them indirectly in the opposite direction, by rewarding and fetishizing 'freedom' and whoredom.
Well this is where you lose points with people because you are maintain the idealization of women's feminine virtue as the best aspiration but i;m trying to tell you that such idealization is the same basis for such hostility. When the idealization is broken by reality it's met with hostility. One puts women up a pedestal and then attacks her if she falls from the expectation of feminine perfection, even at times when its by no wrong doing of her own but it simply damages the idealization of her purity.
I'm trying to get you to recognize that neither offers substantive freedom, but imposes a set of restriction that are complimentary to one another, the idealization of women as openly sexual is just as problematic as the expectation of the opposite extreme of them all being virgin marys. This is what ambivalent sexism captures, here I'll transcribe the three components that make up ambivalent sexism from the paper for a easier and quicker glance.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdfThree Components of Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism
Paternalism
In common discourse, paternalism and sexism are often used synonymously, yet the former term, surprisingly, is not indexed in PsycLit, despite many references to the latter. Paternalism literally means relating to others"in the manner of a father dealing with his children" (Random House College Dictionary,1973). This definition meshes well with the view that sexism is a form of ambivalence, for it includes connotations of both domination (dominative paternalism) as well as affection and protection (protective paternalism).
Advocates of dominative paternalism justify patriarchy by viewing women as not being fully competent adults, legitimizing the need for a superordinate male figure. Yet protective paternalism may coexist with its dominative counterpart because men are dyadically dependent on women (because of heterosexual reproduction) as wives, mothers, and romantic objects; thus, women are to beloved, cherished, and protected (their "weaknesses" require that men fulfill the protector-and-provider role).
Research on power in heterosexual romantic relationships confirms that dominative paternalism is the norm (see Brehm, 1992, Chapter9; Peplau, 1983). In its most extreme form, the traditional marriage(see Peplau, 1983 ), both partners agree that the husband should wield greater authority, to which the wife should defer.Protective paternalism is evident in the traditional male gender role of provider and protector of the home, with the wife dependent on the husband to maintain her economic and social status(Peplau, 1983; Tavris & Wade, 1984).
Gender Differentiation
All cultures use physical differences between the sexes as a basis for making social distinctions, which are manifested as notions about gender identity (Harris, 1991; Stockard & Johnson, 1992).Developmentally, gender is one of the earliest and strongest forms of group identity to be internalized ( Maccoby, 1988), and peopleare more likely to categorize others on the basis of gender than on the basis of race, age, or role (A. P. Fiske, Haslam, & Fiske, 1991;Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992). Social identity theory(Tajfel, 1981 ) suggests that the tendency to differentiate between groups will be strong when social status is bound up with group membership, helping to create social ideologies that justify the status differences. Like dominative paternalism, competitive gender differentiation presents a social justification for male structural Only men are perceived as having the traits necessary to govern important social institutions.
This creates downward comparisons,in which women serve, in Virginia Woolf's ( 1929 / 1981 )words, as "looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of a man at twice its natural size"(p. 35), allowing individual men to enhance their self-esteem by association with a male social identity (Tajfel, 1981 ). Alongside the competitive drive to differentiate, however, the dyadic dependencyof men on women (as romantic objects, as wives and mothers) fosters notions that women have many positive traits(Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Mladinic, 1993; Poplau, 1983) that complement those of men (complementary gender differentiation). Just as the traditional division of labor between the sexes creates complementary roles (men working outside the home, women within), the traits associated with these roles (and hence with each sex) are viewed as complementary. The favorable traits ascribed to women compensate for what men stereotypically lack (e.g., sensitivity to others' feelings). Hence a man may speak of his "better half "; for the benevolent sexist, the woman completes the man.
Heterosexuality
Virginia Woolf ( 1929/1981 ) haTarded her own answer about the reasons for polarized images of women in literature: "the astonishing extremes of her beauty and horror; her alternations between heavenly goodness and hellish depravity" are as "a lover would see her as his love rose or sank, was prosperous or unhappy"(p. 83). Heterosexuality is, undoubtedly, one of the most powerful sources of men's ambivalence toward women.
Heterosexual romantic relationships are ranked by men (and women) as one of the top sources of happiness in life ( see Berscheid & Peplau, 1983;Brehm, 1992), and these relationships are typically nominated as the most psychologically close and intimate relationships men have (Berscheid et al., 1989). Men's sexual motivation toward women may be linked with a genuine desire for psychological closeness ( heterosexual intimacy). Although, at their best, heterosexual relationships are the source of euphoric and intimate feelings(Hatfield, 1988), romantic relationships between men and women also pose the greatest threat of violence toward women(Unger & Crawford, 1992). Men's dyadic dependency on women creates an unusual situation in which members of a more powerful group are dependent on members of a subordinate group. Sex is popularly viewed as a resource for which women act as the gatekeepers(ZiUmann & Weave~ 1989).
This creates a vulnerability that men may resent, which is reflected in the frequency with which women are portrayed in literature as manipulative "temptresses,"such as Delilah, who can "emasculate" men. The belief that women use their sexual allure to gain dominance over men(who would, in vulgar parlance, be called "pussy-whipped') is a belief that is ~ted with hostility toward women (Check,Malamuth, Elias, & Barton, 1985). As Bargh and Raymond(1995) and Pryor, Giedd, and Williams (1995) demonstrated, for some men sexual attraction toward women may be inseparable from a desire to dominate them (heterosexual hostility).
Not by any means, control is perfectly fine if it serves the best interests of the individuals and culture, much like laws against murder and rape. "Freedom" as an end in and of itself is depraved.
Substantive freedom needs to be considered as much as control. Control of women needs to be justified beyond appeals to gender roles as being a virtue in themselves when I suggest that they in fact are just an arbitrary means of control that reduces women's autonomy to that of children and punishes them severely when they step outside of male control or the social expectations that maintain such dominance. Gender roles in many contexts when society progresses beyond being actively hostile towards women, become obsolete and redundant, those thoroughly attache to such traditions have a hard time adapting to the obsletion of such roles as society changes and often react violently.
For example, in the 70s Australia took in make low skilled Vietnam refugees after the Vietnam war, who were escaping from the communists. They couldn't find good jobs so both parents would seek jobs. Often the woman would acquire a better paying job which disrupted the gendered order of male patriarchal control of the family and leverage over his wife economically. When such control is threatened and men feel entitled from having a dick to have control over women, they resort to violence to instill control through fear and force because the other means have failed to assure such control. So for a long time there were a lot of broken families which resulted in the kids of such broken homes forming gangs for social support.
Male dominance is an ideology quite normative to social relations that are worthy of being challenged for their arbitrariness and hostility towards women which are unjust in themselves.
If people don't subscribe to what's correct and virtuous, their opinions don't matter, just as those of Jeffery Dahmer don't. So they can either subscribe to it, or society can penalize them for it, their call.
I think its a big sweep to compare someone like Jeffrey Dahmer to women who break gendered boundaries, theres a big difference between a woman who for example seeks to be autonomous and have formal power in her own right rather than indirectly at best through a man and a serial killer.
It's a part of nature, so it was imposed by nature.
This is a terrible argument, John Stuart Mill way back argued how silly this was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Subjection_of_Women#ArgumentsMill attacks the argument that women are naturally worse at some things than men, and should, therefore, be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. He says that we simply don't know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try – one cannot make an authoritative statement without evidence. We can't stop women from trying things because they might not be able to do them. An argument based on speculative physiology is just that, speculation.
"The anxiety of mankind to intervene on behalf of nature...is an altogether unnecessary solicitude. What women by nature cannot do, it is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing."[8]
In this, men are basically contradicting themselves because they say women cannot do an activity and want to stop them from doing it. Here Mill suggests that men are basically admitting that women are capable of doing the activity, but that men do not want them to do so.
Whether women can do them or not must be found out in practice. In reality, we don't know what women's nature is, because it is so wrapped up in how they have been raised. Mill suggests we should test out what women can and can't do – experiment.
"I deny that any one knows or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely."[8]
Women are brought up to act as if they were weak, emotional, docile – a traditional prejudice. If we tried equality, we would see that there were benefits for individual women. They would be free of the unhappiness of being told what to do by men. And there would be benefits for society at large – it would double the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity. The ideas and potential of half the population would be liberated, producing a great effect on human development.
If it was an enduring nature, then there would be no need to enforce it through misogyny. The term nature itself is rather vague when one resorts to it and even in discussing what is natural, this doesn't in itself suggest what is morally right/virtuous. Naturalistic law is for theocrats attempting to assert a certain interpretation of Allah/God's will. Which has interesting implications for say the existence of the female clitoris which isn't required for reproduction but based in natural law would suggest god wants us to sexually pleasure women otherwise why would clitoris' exist XD
In fact, misogyny (the enforcement of sexist ideology) is in fact a reaction to acknowledgment tha tin reality women are bound by natural law to such behaviours otherwise they couldn't act as such, but because they don't rather than confront the bullshit of ones ideology, one simply tries to force reality to fit ones ideology to avoid dissonance.
p. 34
http://www.katemanne.net/uploads/7/3/8/4/73843037/what_is_misogyny_a_feminist_analysis__2_.pdfFor similar reasons, a misogynist need not have sexist beliefs about women either. Indeed, when an agent‘s sexist beliefs start to wane, latent misogyny may surface. Someone who both wants to keep women in their place, and who believes that women naturally belong there, will often be complacent. Whereas, someone who continues to harbor this desire while no longer believing it is bound to come to fruition will often become anxious, guarded, and vigilant. True, this desire would begin to seem more and more unjust to someone to whom it is transparent. But such desires are often inchoate and mired in false consciousness. Misogyny enlists agents to fight for values they don‘t know they believe in, as well as to defend forms of privilege which to them remain invisible. It also makes them experts in post hoc rationalization. He can always find a reason why a particular woman doesn‘t deserve to be where she is, when she manages to transcend her subordinate social position. The fact that he prefers women to remain in these roles is hence subject to indefinite postponement and plausible deniability.
That's an absurd philosophy in which people's motivations are inherently selfish.
I don't assume it is the only possible motivation, but I think the strong tendency is those that don't consider a woman's wants but simply impose their protection onto circumstances often are driven by such heroic fantasies, it is something that is idealized for the male role, even to the degree of self sacrifice is such a thing romanticized. Oh damsel in distress let me save you. Saving someone from harm isn't bad, but there are many cases in which a woman doesn't wish for help and it is imposed upon her against her will. To which one has to justify such an imposition as morally valid which again means that many are invalid in their imposition whilst some are.
So for example, some men threaten the men who sexually harassed or raped women they knew and are related to. In some cases it intimidates the violent person, in other cases it serves to damage the woman if she herself doesn't wish vengeance upon their attacker in such a violent way.
For such an example, the famous
I Know Why the Caged Bird SingsA turning point in the book occurs when Maya and Bailey's father unexpectedly appears in Stamps. He takes the two children with him when he departs, but leaves them with their mother in St. Louis, Missouri. Eight-year-old Maya is sexually abused and raped by her mother's boyfriend, Mr. Freeman. He is found guilty during the trial, but escapes jail time and is murdered, presumably by Maya's uncles. Maya feels guilty and withdraws from everyone but her brother. Even after returning to Stamps, Maya remains reclusive and nearly mute until she meets Mrs. Bertha Flowers, "the aristocrat of Black Stamps",[24] who encourages her through books and communication to regain her voice and soul. This coaxes Maya out of her shell.
Such vengeance can come to harm those that one is supposedly protecting. And in such cases it often results in those that commit such vengeance being imprisoned themselves which can deprive the victim of a valuable person from their lives.
It is morally fine to end life in the name of righteousness in many situations.
I think it could be debated to what extent this can be accepted that its morally justifiable to murder someone who did harm to a woman. It needs to be argued in detail why it is the case rather than accepted simply true that it is indeed moral.
Nature ordained men as the protectors of external threats, and women as the peservers of internal order, ordained all the way down the DNA leve;- you're at war with nature and it's creator.
I think one has to do better than appeal to saying Nature/biology did it. Because one has to go onto explain such a relationship, one which is highly tenuous because our biology is interwoven with our social reality. In this Marx is perhaps the best in emphasizing that
man's nature is social, man can not be abstracted from the social reality in which he exists like
John Locke's Man in a state of nature without entirely disregarding what is true of reality (ie reductionist) in the manner in which all liberalism accepts a faulty ontology of the individual pre-existing society.
http://www.psupress.org/books/SampleChapters/0-271-02853-Xsc.htmlThe assumption in this case is that human individuals are ontologically prior to society; in other words, human individuals are the basic constituents out of which social groups are composed. Logically if not empirically, human individuals could exist outside a social context; their essential characteristics, their needs and interests, their capacities and desires, are given independently of their social context and are not created or even fundamentally altered by that context. This metaphysical assumption is sometimes called abstract individualism because it conceives of human individuals in abstraction from any social circumstances.
[url]Sociologically speaking, her value ot the ecosystem ties in with her sexuality, and there is no way to deny this without simply denying nature.
[/url]
There are ways to talk of think that aren't so reckless in their vague assertion to what nature does or does not do. And whilst sexuality can be of value, it seems rather strong position to assert that it is a persons primary or in the extreme cases (not that you're necessarily asserting it here) only value. It can be considered morally problematic to perceive women and treat women as if they were only sexual objects. TO which we can explore the many thinkers who've delved into such thought to the morally problematic manner in which women are objectified and the treatment they received that is thought based in this perspective. You seem to disdain commodification of women, yet see no issue in positioning them as a sexual object still with her value in her sexual purity or perceived lack there of. Your opposition to the west's degenerate commodification isn't of any concern to women's well being, its wowser moralizing that seeks to argue for control of women and its legitimacy under a guise of morality and virtue. To which I assert that such a view is no better and is in fact a part of the very view in which one opposes, you appear to be the opposite side of the same coin as the western capitalism you detest. To fully reject what the west does, one has to break the ideology that positions womens value in their sexuality, but you do not fundamentally oppose this, you just dislike the manner in which it is used.
Being hypersexual causes them to be seen as sexual objects, being modest causes them to be seen as beings with spirits.
Therefore behavior which encourages the former, and discourages the latter has a right to be controlled for the good of society.
Spirits? That's not very compelling for those of us that don't share in such sentiments where one idealizes and romanticizes one's illusion of women. One that struggles to accept people holistically and instead wishes to perceive them through a certain lens rather than attempt to take in how things exist. Your view is one where you begin with the abstract and impose it onto reality rather than try and mediate the observable reality to shape your abstractions.
Basically, you're one who instead of arranging you belief to fit the world, the world arranges itself to fit the belief of you, thus where you get your assumptions about things being natural because you seek to firm your beliefs not realizing how weak the foundations of such beliefs being based in biological determinism is.
You're deluded into thinking that "automony" is good or an end in and of itself, people are part of a collective society and ecoysystem which is greater than the sum of its parts.
Pure autonomy often leads to evil and immorality, as the modern West is evidence of with its fetishization of "individualism' and "freedom".
I don't argue for pure autonomy, but I do contest the means to which one validates such imposition on anothers autonomy. Arbitrary limiting of anothers autonomy is arguably unjust and immoral.
It's say, the difference between taking people into my bomb shelter so they can survive a nuclear war and telling them that there is a nucelar war and locking them in my bomb shelter. When the validity of a threat is no longer there, one can not morally justify imposition upon another under the belief of protecting them. Protection in this case paternalistic protection to be specific, can only be justified upon true threats and harm. But one needs to consider what degree of protection is warranted to the expense of autonomy, as life inherently has risks and we have to argue why such an imposition is warranted at the loss of freedom.
Because every time I go out in the street, I'm technically increasing my risk of harm, but it would be rather extreme to impose that I should not leave my home because i might be hit by a car or robbed or what ever. Respect for another autonomy maintains that its up to the individual what degree of risk they are willing to enter. When you lack respect for them as a rational adult, its easy to strip away their autonomy in the way one does a child but this treats a rational being in an immoral and unjustifiable way because adult women aren't children in need of such paternalism. As such, one has to negotiate with the woman and consider her concerns otherwise one is simply being a tyrant over another on an ideology of only having a dick is valid enough for control which is a weak basis of rationalization.
I accept that people aren't isolated individuals, I'm not a liberal except to the extent its still got its claws stuck in my own ideological outlook. But I don't see the progressive sense in what you propose and see you being stuck in the very same ideological notions of gender that you criticized. You are just as bad as the westerners in terms of perspective. The form of your opinion is different, but the substance/essence is the same.
Neither deserve pure autonomy unless they prove their social worth, those who don't prove such worth can either reform their behavior, or be controlled and aided by society into doing so.
People who are virtuous are naturally more autonomous than those who are vicious anyway, which is why it's usually the more base and degenerate type of people who scream the loudest about "their rights" and "their freedoms".
I disagree, in that autonomy is generally accepted in those that are deemed of a rational capacity. The reason we restrict children with paternalistic behaviour is they lack the rational capacity to consider the implications/extent/consequences of their actions. At some particular point of development, we tend to see people as adults who are able to bear the consequences of their actions and have on average a capacity to foresee consequences which they will ideally bear.
I don't get the point that those who are virtuous are naturally more autonomous. That sounds too abstract to me in the sense that it doesn't have a concrete example of why this is necessarily the case. I don't readily see virtue instilling autonomy. But anyway, I don't advocate pure autonomy and I don't know if such a thing could exist in a society with many social relations.
I just don't accept the rationalizations, assumptions and assertions you make to the strength that you make them. To which I've tried to explain my own view point as to the issues I see in what I understand as your view.
Your entire argument is based on fetishizing "freedom" and "autonomy" as desirable ends, rather than virtue and greater purpose in life than the insignificant self, so like much of Western narcissistic ideologies, it's inherently immoral.
You still haven't explained the nature of virtue in the same way that you haven't explained what you mean by nature/natural. These are vague empty words until clarified, buzz words in the same way you find words like 'freedom' and 'autonomy' to be buzzwords that are empty it seems.
Your response to my points is merely to argue against the west, rather than points I make. I don't care about what you hate about the west and to some degree I even agree with you to the problematic nature in which sexuality is used as a commodity of women's exploitation. I simply disagree with your proposal which still is a significant detriment to women.
Their social value is, as the biological construct of sex and gender is what makes them a "woman" to begin with. So you're just denying nature.
Radical feminists from what I've seen, are many anti-social personalities who want to destroy femininity and all that's good in nature.
I don't understand what the first part of this quote is even saying, I also wonder to what extent you understand the different debates around the discrete nature of sex and gender, because the two aren't discretely separate as much as the layman tends to believe because this makes nonsense of the idea of gender as intended by feminists.
Could read up on it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/It's because your belief of femininity in women as natural is clearly at friction with reality. Hence why i keep reiterating that the idealization of women, put onto a pedestal, serves as a basis for hostilities towards them when they in fact don't abide by 'nature' and break expectations of gender.
It would indeed seem to me radical feminists want to destroy the category of gender or its social significance for the most part. Because where one presumes feminine roles are natural to women, they are in fact a result of the social relations and positions in which the sexes are put into.
Parenting as a gendered sense in which mothers are primary care takers would lose its gendered significance in a society in which men similarly participate in child rearing to a similar extent. Because when the real world relations are no longer ones of extreme exclusivity, gender as a concept becomes more blurred and the more clearly it becomes meaningless because it can't maintain an opposition of masculine in contrast to feminine. Because all of a sudden, people hold a belief that men and women can both do parenting, can both be doctors, can bother be factory workers etc. The loss of gender segregation undermines the abstract nonsense that is projected onto reality to legitimize the status quo.
They need to either conform to a righteous system or be punished by it, so do men.
Those who seek to destroy righteous systems are sociopaths and are controlled because they have to be.
The system is the organ; individuals are cells - organs removed infected cells because the greater purpose of the organ trumps the 'autonomy' of individual cells.
So yes, women (and men) who behave in ways which are immodest and counter-productive to the purpose of the ecosystem which nature ordained them subordinate to, not only deserve to be judged for it but should be actively judged for it, rather than 'pretended' to be tolerated by those too spineless to take a stand on anything.
I must wonder if your Islamic. In that I realize that Islam is heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle in its emphasis on virtuous city, in which politics and religion are deeply entwined. From this you might better articulate your view points if you have knowledge of:
Artistotle's thoughts on happines, Al-Farabi opinions on sick and virtuous cities, the contiouation of such thought from Ibn Bajja. To which I could share some material to provide support to your articulation of your views and values.
I take a stand, in the sense that I think gender roles are thoroughly obsolete once material conditions and productive forces have expanded beyond feudalism, undergone industrialization and women agitate for their rights and undermine the gender ideology and social roles which are imposed upon them that are traditions for a dead society which no longer exists once things have progressed.
Those that are unable to accept the world has change and is not static, stuck too much in traditions best suited for past conditions and unable to adapt. Those who don't adapt to changes are to be crushed for their obstruction to progress.
The fact that so many can see alternatives within their circumstances shows the obseletion of such tradition. Because people may endure shitty conditions with some ease to the extent that they can't avoid it. We may be distressed by death but there is little alternative. But there are alternatives for social relations and organization that improve things. Once that is there, those that bar change that clearly improves things relative to how they were need to be done away forcefully and thus I think it is good for any men and women who radically fuck up those that obstruct progress because they are stuck in a static abstraction. And so a struggle is entered into, in which one has to destroy or dominate the other and as material conditions change, I put greater chances on change creating fertile conditions than I do for those that would require destroying our productive capacities to gain the upper hand. Which speaks to the reality of a lot of middle eastern countries that were fucked over by western militaries and in reaction to radical leftists supported radical religious theocrats and reduced nations to a feudalists lords in the modern age.
But overall, there is no agreement between someone such as myself and one who would emphasize spirituality and morality from a particular religion that I don't subscribe to and their wish for it to be imposed on others. It too much deontological ethics without any consequentialism and I really don't give a shit about abstract principles that have little concern for their real world effect. Those that make appeals purely to the abstract are sophists who obscure peoples understanding of the world, mystifying their ability to see reality and form substantive views and beliefs about that reality. Hence the nonsense in the idea that killing women for a lack of sexual 'purity' can be seen as somehow virtuous while by much sense it is just barbarism that should be met with barbarism upon those that enact it. So that one can create conditions in which the general society doesn't have to endure it because those that would create such barbarism in a society would be met with their own standards.
Such an imposition would inevitably result in a conflict that that has no amicable end unless the imposition is to be neutralized. In part because I think many are unwise in how they look at their religions in terms of form rather than substance. Fundamentalists and the idiot atheists who accept such a literal interpretation and begin acting out rules which they assume is based in wisdom but come to no conclusion of their own to the validity of of such an association. Putting great power in certain individuals by legitimization that they are truer thinkers of the intent of a holy scripture, not seeing how it can be a tool of manipulation to unwise and immoral ends by those which blindly follow. Such is a tendency in those that too strongly emphasize the false harmony of the collective for sake of order and stability to the detriment of many that they claim to be part of that collective. That in reality a minority rules the majority and the collective is screwed over as their interests and wisdom is rejected by the minority in authority.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
- By Pants-of-dog
- By noemon
- By ingliz