I am disappointed this article resorts to paraphrasing a paraphrase of Thiel’s essay rather than the original essay directly. Journalism! The paraphrase makes him sound like he’s intentionally being overtly misognyistic. In the original essay, he provocatively blames women’s suffrage for making it hard to get libertarian policies passed, and and afterward clarifies he obviously doesn’t mean women’s suffrage should be revoked.
Yeah, I too think that women’s suffrage resulted in different policies being voted in than would have otherwise. Similarly, if white men couldn’t vote, we’d see a lot of advances I’d like – but I don’t want anyone disenfranchised.
This article just says: “In 2009, Thiel said libertarianism would have more sway if only men voted. Also, Trump is requiring extra documentation in order to vote, disenfranchising many voters.” It does not explain what the plot in the headline is, or how Trump’s XO impacts women in particular.
Thiel may or may not be a misogynist (I have no idea), but can we at least keep our criticisms grounded in reality please?
This article is not wrong for not supporting its premise. It is wrong for giving this blow hard a platform. The longer we listen to what these pigs say the less time we have to talk about what is really going on.
He is most definitely misogynist, but that is not the worst of his his sins. He is the literal definition of wealth inequality and the primary reason we are at the crossroads we are.
He is an escapist that cares more about fantasy technologies than realities of policy that will solve our problems. Libertarians are just another astroturf for Neo Feudalism.
Back to the article, yeah it was severely lacking. It fails to even approach its title. I think it is a great place to start a conversation though. While I am not sure I can spin a direct attack on women’s voting rights, there is something much worse going on.
Most gains from DEI were not minorities, but women. This assault on DEI is really a thinly veiled assault on women. This combined with braindead policies like not considering sex, gender, race in medical research makes it clear women stand the most to lose in all this.
There is also the psychological effect of putting a known and unrepentant sexual assaulter in the White House. I imagine keeping women disengaged is very important for the conservative movement and boy have they perfected turning women off.
Taking away fundamental reproductive rights of women and robbing their right of redress through manipulating the courts is just the start. Their current push for voter ID will likely disenfranchise millions of women, but I am not sure that is the smoking gun.
I think the more we look for that moment or sign that this administration is anti-women is the more we continue to ignore it has always been anti-women. That is the point or feature so to speak. The unspoken truth of man up and woman down.
See, that’s a much more interesting take, with actual evidence. The article should have been about that. As is, the article is purely baseless fearmongering, and we don’t need that. If you’re going to write about how Trump is a threat to women, use the waterfall of evidence available for that.
You’re right but in my opinion the media is massivley sugarcoating Thiel. His ties to white nationalists and repeated hinting about how we’d be so much better off without democracy would be treated as far more alarming if it were coming from a prominent Democrat.
Thiel has made it as a CEO because he’s able to (barely) maintain a public persona that hides his true extremism. But it’s so clearly there beneath the surface. Maybe he didn’t quite outright say he was against women having the right to vote, but we can guess how he feels inside at this point.
Great, so there’s no need to make up garbage takes on Thiel, since there’s plenty of legitimate, evidence-supported takes on him they could have gone with.
Any article which makes stuff up to support the cause is bad for the cause.
I am disappointed this article resorts to paraphrasing a paraphrase of Thiel’s essay rather than the original essay directly. Journalism! The paraphrase makes him sound like he’s intentionally being overtly misognyistic. In the original essay, he provocatively blames women’s suffrage for making it hard to get libertarian policies passed, and and afterward clarifies he obviously doesn’t mean women’s suffrage should be revoked.
Yeah, I too think that women’s suffrage resulted in different policies being voted in than would have otherwise. Similarly, if white men couldn’t vote, we’d see a lot of advances I’d like – but I don’t want anyone disenfranchised.
This article just says: “In 2009, Thiel said libertarianism would have more sway if only men voted. Also, Trump is requiring extra documentation in order to vote, disenfranchising many voters.” It does not explain what the plot in the headline is, or how Trump’s XO impacts women in particular.
Thiel may or may not be a misogynist (I have no idea), but can we at least keep our criticisms grounded in reality please?
This article is not wrong for not supporting its premise. It is wrong for giving this blow hard a platform. The longer we listen to what these pigs say the less time we have to talk about what is really going on.
He is most definitely misogynist, but that is not the worst of his his sins. He is the literal definition of wealth inequality and the primary reason we are at the crossroads we are.
He is an escapist that cares more about fantasy technologies than realities of policy that will solve our problems. Libertarians are just another astroturf for Neo Feudalism.
Back to the article, yeah it was severely lacking. It fails to even approach its title. I think it is a great place to start a conversation though. While I am not sure I can spin a direct attack on women’s voting rights, there is something much worse going on.
Most gains from DEI were not minorities, but women. This assault on DEI is really a thinly veiled assault on women. This combined with braindead policies like not considering sex, gender, race in medical research makes it clear women stand the most to lose in all this.
There is also the psychological effect of putting a known and unrepentant sexual assaulter in the White House. I imagine keeping women disengaged is very important for the conservative movement and boy have they perfected turning women off.
Taking away fundamental reproductive rights of women and robbing their right of redress through manipulating the courts is just the start. Their current push for voter ID will likely disenfranchise millions of women, but I am not sure that is the smoking gun.
I think the more we look for that moment or sign that this administration is anti-women is the more we continue to ignore it has always been anti-women. That is the point or feature so to speak. The unspoken truth of man up and woman down.
See, that’s a much more interesting take, with actual evidence. The article should have been about that. As is, the article is purely baseless fearmongering, and we don’t need that. If you’re going to write about how Trump is a threat to women, use the waterfall of evidence available for that.
You’re right but in my opinion the media is massivley sugarcoating Thiel. His ties to white nationalists and repeated hinting about how we’d be so much better off without democracy would be treated as far more alarming if it were coming from a prominent Democrat.
Thiel has made it as a CEO because he’s able to (barely) maintain a public persona that hides his true extremism. But it’s so clearly there beneath the surface. Maybe he didn’t quite outright say he was against women having the right to vote, but we can guess how he feels inside at this point.
Great, so there’s no need to make up garbage takes on Thiel, since there’s plenty of legitimate, evidence-supported takes on him they could have gone with.
Any article which makes stuff up to support the cause is bad for the cause.
It’s a pretty safe bet that anything terrible you hear about Theil is probably true, except that it is probably even worse than you heard.
Haha, fair enough. I just think it’s bad journalism to play so loose.
hang on, hang on, let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good here.