I am responding specifically to the original point that the 50s represented a time where women somehow worked less than ever before. That’s just not true. I am not arguing against the idea that women performed valuable labor roles.

No, I am arguing with the fact that you said the that the 50s were a “blip” of non-work in women’s working history, when in fact, all the same types of work that had been available to women for hundreds of years continued to be available to them in the 50s. The whole point of the Domestic Housewife image was an artificial cultural push to get women BACK into the types of work you are describing, the pre-WWII style of work to which most women did not necessarily want to return.

Yes, there was a reactionary advertising push toward the Domestic Housewife image that happened in the 50s, but that was a direct response to the fact that in the 50s women were demanding to maintain the transition from home work to society work.

Kids her age often tend to only care about the opinions of other kids their own age.

Sure, but women still did all of those activities in the 50s. That didn’t change. And none of it is the same as holding a paid job. There were a small array of activities available to us, and we were expected to give most of them up upon marriage or at the latest pregnancy. And you couldn’t have a bank account or keep your earnings in any meaningful way. So the 50s were no different from the 30s or 10s in that regard, EXCEPT that women were entering the paid workforce in greater numbers than ever before, which is the opposite of your original point to which I am responding.

I mean that’s just not true. I thought everyone learned about how WWII offered women the opportunity to join the workforce in mass numbers for the first time because of the crucial roles that were left open by the men who were off to fight. That’s what sparked the transition toward women’s right to work at all. Before that, there was no such right. Unless you are counting cooking and cleaning at home, or tending the family farm, as “work”, but I don’t believe that’s what people mean when we are referring to “a woman’s right to work”.

Where can a civilian get a good bulletproof vest?

Yes, they have that “social conservativism” that has become the shared obsession of the American right thanks to Russia’s brilliant disinfo and behavioral modification campaign.

I just meant that, economically, they do not share American conservative values. For example, the typical poor Russian can’t just work their way up the social ladder, start their own business, hit it big, own a bunch of property, etc. You must be born into it, full stop. This is the piece that American conservatives fail to understand in their Russian aspirations, and why, at the end of the day, they really do not want to be Russian despite what they’ve been brainwashed to believe.

Under the current administration we indeed aspire to be more like Russia and are succeeding.

You have a lot of catching up to do. Good luck.

That’s not quite right. Russia is not conservative in the American sense of the term, although they are far right in terms of authoritarian rule. They’re an oligarchy. But their 10-year psy-op against American conservatives has been incredibly successful. They are up to their eyeballs in Russian conditioning and behavioral modification.

It’s actually incredibly impressive. Turns out that Russia won the Cold War, and their greatest former adversaries (American conservatives) ended up being the United States’ weakest link at the end of the game. Endlessly fascinating stuff.

You sound triggered. Take a break.

No. The biggest mainstream players in social media are all already aligned with the current administration. Meta et al. would be the ones to be available for free, and alternatives will be paywalled.

Found it, thank you!

It’s part of the strategy – publicly condemn people as being the type of person that is easy to hate so that there is support for the punishment.

If he started disappearing people without giving any reason, his supporters would be more likely to take note of that and question him. “Violent criminals and terrorists” on the other hand, that the people can get behind, apparently without question.

Glad you can see it that way. Even your average liberal agrees that deporting violent criminals is a good idea – what we oppose is the idea that the government can accuse anyone of being a violent criminal without evidence, punish them without scrutiny, and even make them disappear.

Not all 341 million are required, but other than that, yes, successful protests and other forms of resistance have always been about people “all agreeing to do the same thing.”

History is your friend here.

What you are missing about why we are actually enraged is the complete lack of evidence of their crimes or any kind of due process. Everybody deserves to be heard by the court.

Even if you don’t care about immigrants, you should realize that if they can be targeted and punished without evidence, then you can be too.

How do you find it? I don’t see an app called SafetyCore on my phone

That’s exactly who he is trying to appeal to.