We will never have true equality until we recognize that all people are equally important. That we all need each other and that no one is more important than anybody else. And that includes corporations and employees, government and citizens, men and women, for instance.

All of our society is organized into some kind of hierarchy, upper classes, middle class and the lower classes, government, president, vice president, congress people, ordinary people, corporations, CEOs, board members, ordinary employees, customers... It's tempting to say if you are a corporation, there are always more customers, there are always more employees, there are always more congress people, but the reality is corporations need customers and customers aren't really disposable, it'd be nice if there was genuine competition between corporations but there's not...

The whole thing must come down because while we think of one group or individual as disposable, they aren't. Because sooner or later we get to the point of the image of Martin Niemoller's quote. If we can dispose of customers or citizens or women then sooner or later they will dispose of you.

Women have been treated as disposable for years. If one woman stops being pretty/young enough, whines or spends too much, she is often gotten rid of. Only her time and DNA are important, her DNA for child production, if she is pretty, your kids have a better chance of being prettier. Her time to manage the kids, keeping the house clean, cooking, shopping for groceries...

This is why the whole hierarchical system must come down. No one should be considered disposable.

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." - Mahatma Ghandi

Until we realize no one is more important than anybody else, we'll always be considered disposable. And in some ways we are all disposable, life should go on if any of us dies... We all need each other, and because we all need each other, no one is more important than another.

This is not to say that one person isn't more important than someone else at particular points in time - a baby needs it's mother completely for quite awhile after birth and all the time before birth. We all might prefer the company of one person over another person at sometime. Someone may sing certain songs better than others, be better at solving certain kinds of problems, may be more artistic or athletic... we are all unique with a different skill set.

Having a hierarchy, the type that comes with government, corporations and class structures have to be destroyed if we are going to have true equality. Ostrom researched cooperative ways to perform the same functions as corporations and some of the functions of government.

Power plays and counter-moves, wriggling up the ladder and pissing on those below you while brown-nosing those above you is what it's all about in being part of surviving in our society.

This also works for groups of people. Society bully's groups of people by targeting one example, such as the mother who lost sight of her son and a gorilla was shot to protect the boy. Thereby telling mothers that they are less important than endangered species.

Young women are also another group that is targeted, if they dress in a way that is considered 'too slutty' and she gets raped - then she was, you know, asking for it... or if she was drinking, or out by herself... at night.

Women are also targeted for murder charges, just pretty much any show on Investigation discovery, they'll tell you how evil women are, all of them - all women belong in jail - just in case some innocent man happens to be targeted by one of them. At the moment they are also targeting JonBenet Ramsay's mom. Although occasionally it is a black man who killed someone. (I often wonder if this channel is owned and operated by the private prison industrial complex.)

Which is odd because statistics demonstrate if a man is going to murder he is 3x more likely to kill a man than he is likely to kill a woman. Women perform less than 10% of all murders. If a man is raped, he is more likely to be raped by a male (I don't know what is considered female rape of men, whether it is using his erection while he is asleep or anal penetration without consent, or perhaps it's both - I don't know.)

Men experience more violence at the hands of men.

Men are 3-5x also more likely to suicide than women.

You could argue men have a men problem. But what I think is men have an age problem. They aren't high on the pecking order, the hierarchy, they still feel vulnerable to other men higher in the pecking order. They feel afraid because they have been told to suck it up, they have been told that they should hide their feelings when clearly they feel very afraid and vulnerable. Violence is a very important device for pushing people lower down the social pecking order.

Once when men get older they come into their power.

So who don't we blame ever - rich old men - famous men - or rich white good looking men - or good looking men or athletes unless they aren't fully white. These people are extremely unlikely to go to prison, but usually do the worst crimes, like destroying the economy, destroying people's lives, starting wars to make money, poisoning water, polluting the environment...

We have some serious issues in our society.

Gender stereotypes of boys having to be brave and emotionless and the pecking order. If we could solve these problems we as a society would be so much better off.

The other problem is misplaced attention. Boys must struggle hard to get our attention. Women/girls have to do very little to get our attention. We are constantly monitoring and policing the behavior of women and neglecting boys completely even and especially when they behave badly. The bad behavior of boys is attention seeking.

What does revolution really look like anyway? Most of the time when we think of revolution we think of cops and barricades and frustrated people screaming and reciting mantras of what they believe needs to be changed. But we've seen time and time again, this kind of revolution doesn't change anything (at least, not by itself). For every one of those people screaming, there are at least ten people at home wanting things to remain exactly as they are. In the end, all revolution achieves is one group of powerful rich old white men transferring their power to another set of (soon to be rich) old white men and nothing really changes.

I noticed a true revolution had occurred with one vignette from Mad Men: a scene of Don Draper's family leaving a picnic site. They got up, leaving all their rubbish at the site, and simply got in the car and drove away. The same thing would never happen today; there was no storming of the barricades to make us clean up our picnic sites - it's something we just do.

The revolution will not be televised -- it'll happen when no one knows it's actually happening.

Even today virtually all power is tightly clutched in the hands of rich old white men. There is nothing so establishment as rich white old men: they own and run everything, from the media down to every corporation. Even when there is a female CEO, she is one female face in a sea of male top-level executives, and to be replaced by a male; when a corporate board has women on it, the ruling majority board members will be men (and the few women who temporarily reach the top echelons must outplay and generally simulate men and their testosterone-soaked hierarchy to remain).

Having a female US President will be a massive break to the psyche of rich white old men: the establishment.

Of course you can't tell men that. We're all the same - we're all just vaginas. The already-common refrain, "sure, you're saying you and all women MUST vote for her just because she has a vagina," all but outright states that essentially Clinton is no different than Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann... the only thing we are is vaginas. Assign a quick number from 1-10 for sexual desirability (in true sophomoric, Trumpian fashion) for any real differentiation;  likely all of us can throw together a sandwich. What else are we good for really?

But we see the establishment in action all too often, most recently with Clinton being somehow excoriated at the same time she is cleared of all legal wrongdoing - fodder for the narrative, in which everyone *just knows* she was really guilty and manipulated herself into the clear, just like how so many *just knew* Casey Anthony was guilty. There is nothing that'd clear her of wrongdoing in the minds of people who have already made up their minds.

Meanwhile Trump is facing a rape lawsuit (hardly the first charge of sexual or other impropriety)  which goes completely ignored. Completely! This is rape culture. This is acceptable to the establishment.  (While it is true that filing a lawsuit, in itself, does not prove or establish anything, imagine the media's reaction should any such lawsuit have been filed against Clinton, whether Hillary directly, or Bill.)

The real revolution will be when we remove the hierarchy our society imposes upon classes of people. All people will be of equal value: men, women, black, white, children, disabled, LGBT... we won't distinguish between them based on how much money they have or how attractive they may appear to us. But for now, individuals and even whole classes of people are treated as completely disposable. We saw that clearly when it was completely okay for banks, not individuals, to be bailed out and for banks to take people's homes in 2008; we see that whenever corporations sack half their staff to raise stock prices, and no one cares what happened to the out-of-work folks; indeed, the out-of-work generally get the blame for the most part for being so "lazy," so unworthy, so disposable. This is a fundamental aspect of the establishment, the ranking of people into classes, implying that only those with both self-serving wealth and power have true worth.

While we are all different, we are all needed - until we break down this hierarchy we will have the same problem over and over again. We must recognize we all offer different skills to serve each other with, even if it is merely our potential.

Do I think the revolution will be completed if Clinton wins office in November - no, indeed - there will be massive pushback from the establishment. They will not only scrutinize but exaggerate, mischaracterize, and outright lie about everything she does in office and they seize upon any technicality as a distraction from her actual policy goals; this is how they will maintain their power.

And so we also hear from some people who say that we'll just wait to elect our first woman into high office - she will be some mythical "pure" woman who hasn't devoted any part of her life to the pursuit of politics or the goal of being president, who hasn't tried to blend in or work within to the establishment.  They miss just how much Clinton stands out from the establishment: she's a woman - she doesn't have a history of men standing behind her, men to catch her if she falls, men to whitewash her mistakes - like rich old white men do.  The irony is that the establishment's greatest weapon against Clinton is to paint *her* as the establishment -- all while business as usual grinds on.

We love to assign blame. Blame usually goes to those lowest on the totem pole and is a way to push a class of people even lower down that pole.

Nothing was so evident as when that child fell into the enclosure of the gorilla which was shot dead to save the child's life.

People automatically blamed the child's mother - "it was her fault for not watching her kid more closely". When I would ask where the father was - I was told it wasn't relevant where the father was.

To be honest, I don't know how many kids she had with her - perhaps she was momentarily distracted by a conversation with another mother - or offering someone help - I don't know why she took her eyes off her child, but she did - we all have to know we cannot watch another person with both eyes 24/7 - we sleep, we use the bathroom, we cook, we clean... especially mothers.

When we say the mother wasn't a responsible parent, and the ape was 'a wonderful creature' we are elevating the ape above the mother and by extension lowering the mother on our social totem pole under the ape.

We have this tendency to blame those with the least power, in this case the mother.

Some people blamed the practice of keeping animals in zoos, but then the gorilla was bred in the zoo and zoos are one of the few ways of being able to preserve animals at risk of extinction, like gorillas.

But the real fault belongs with the destruction of gorillas' natural habitat. Our establishment, our deference to rich, (white), old men have for decades been taking gorillas' natural habitat, or using the species as 'sport' - and this is why we have a breeding program in zoos.

But no one is blaming old rich (white) men - and they are getting away with destroying the planet in other ways too - by destroying the environment for oil, with their determination that we use oil, that we use absolutely awful farming practices and turning prime farming land into dust bowls, destroying our political system to get their way, the pursuit of wealth and status is destroying the lives of the poor...

Rich old men are the establishment, they own everything, they run everything, they have everything to gain by keeping things exactly the same and never being blamed.

It came to light recently that Exxon knew that using fossil fuels has been impacting the climate for some 40 years.

In that time we've seen zealots who've known that climate change was all made up by government or greenies or ... whoever - for the sake of - whatever and just know that the climate isn't changing at all.

To fuel this, there have been some scientists, probably paid for by the Cato Institute or some such right wing think tank to prove that climate change wasn't really happening so the zealots, and some of those zealots were also paid for by similar think tanks, have 'research' they could point to to prove their case. I just read that Exxon spends $27M every year to block action on climate change, and no doubt some of this money goes to raising questions about the science and to fuel the debate. Some other of those 'zealots' were also paid for and those 'zealots' were right wing (or 'fair and unbiased') media.

Spin and confusion to cloud science - and especially with the weakening of the understanding of what real science is and actively confusing it with 'belief'.

And all of this benefits those making money. Because all the while advocates for curbing the use of fossil fuels in preference for renewable energy have to fight against those who are zealots or at least paid to fight on behalf of those making the money meanwhile the status quo is preserved and those making money can continue to do so.

But there is nothing new to this, 'they' did this originally with cigarettes spreading disinformation to prolong the life expectancy of their product so they could continue milking consumers.

We see a similar dissemination of false information when it comes to abortion and rape - for instance GOP who are woefully ignorant of women's anatomy and others who think that women's bodies actively stop conception as a result of rape(!) The muddying of women's biology by non-experts who think their opinion is a valid representation of the reality benefits those who wish to build armies for future wars that the US may engage upon. Also with freakonomics demonstrating that the legalization of abortion has decreased the crime rate, it's in the best interests of the prison industrial complex to end abortion.

In a number of fields we've seen that throwing money at bad science benefits those making the money.

And this is why I think what those with all the money are doing is throwing money at 'feminists' who seem for the most part to be totally anti-woman. An example of this 'kind of feminist' is 'the factual feminist' who is a 'feminist' in name only. She seems to be really a Mens Rights Activist. She works for and 'publishes' from the American Enterprise Institute - which labels itself as a conservative think tank.

People with money who have employees benefit greatly from telling us there is no pay discrepancies between men and women because it means they will have to pay women more. They also benefit from no paid maternity/paternity leave.

I have said before that I think that Intersectional feminism seems to be the brain child of right wing think tanks wanting women to move out of the workforce. But what seems interesting is that intersectional feminism which seems to be very popular among women's studies students and on college campuses are fighting with 'the factual feminist' so they have set up a war between factions and that benefits employers better because then young women aren't fighting for better pay for all women, they are fighting other 'feminists' instead.

Before you start regurgitating women choosing different professions etc, let me remind you of Lily Ledbetter, the US female soccer team and males who come out and say female tennis players shouldn't earn as much as men. And even if there are differences in performance and experience between men and women performing the same job, women still have to pay more for stuff than men, like hair cuts and clothes, and buy stuff men never have to buy, like sanitary products and bras. So employers get the benefit of paying women less and then there is an added tax on being a woman because women have to pay more. And the reality of oppression can be difficult for oppressors to handle.

So the point is there is a lot of misinformation out there. Don't believe everything you hear especially when there is money to be made from maintaining the status quo. Another example is the misinformation about Hillary Clinton. Do you really believe she sold fracking to the world, a process that has been in use since 1950, when Clinton was 3 years old? No doubt the price of oil during the early years of the Obama administration did more to entice the world to use fracking than anything Clinton may have said as Secretary of State. But people don't think when they repeat lies. Why would a woman being president be so frightening to some men? It is clear that people with money don't like changes to the status quo.

Be careful what you believe. There are a lot of people out there propagating false information for what they see as their own benefit, some may even be paid to tell you these lies. Remember this? News is scripted for the benefit of retailers, you think that scientists are immune to the need of money? Even women need money to survive in our society.

In science there is nothing wrong with developing theories, theories need to be tested to be proven correct. Always  figure out what your assumptions are.

When a field of research is born it seems to take some time for a set of terminology to be developed that will allow people to discuss the subject, kind of the opposite of the idea that George Orwell put forward that if we don't have the words we can't think the ideas. In this case, we are trying to flesh out the ideas, but we just don't have the words or terminology to express those ideas fully yet. The terminology evolves over time.

As the field of research develops ideas, symbols, archetypes, coalesce allowing people to communicate on the subject.

We see this especially in this ridiculous complaint by Men's Rights Activists calling for a boycott of Mad Max: Fury Road because Charlize Theron got more lines in the trailer.

These 'men' turn themselves into a joke with such ludicrous petulance.

The tragedy is that men do experience real problems in our society and this is the state of men's ability to articulate their problems? And the state of the research into the problems men endure is not much better.

Reading "A Guy Thing" (the Stanford Alumni magazine, November/December 2015) they had an article on the fragility of masculinity. They did some research and found that if men thought they failed an exam would over-estimate their height to compensate for their wounded ego, or they would choose prizes that they deemed more masculine if they felt they'd failed. The woman who conducted this research is reported to have said: masculine ideals can be "just as constraining, if not more constraining than the feminine gender role."

Yes, indeed, but like I said, men are experiencing real problems in our society than merely worrying about their height.

Men suicide about 4x more often than women do in the US. I suspect it is because they don't understand the true key to happiness is relationships, as this study found. I think some men assume they don't need to work at building their relationships with loved ones, and I think some men just don't know how to have relationships. As a side note, the Harvard research didn't include women, and initially it only studied rich men but later included poor white men as well(!)

Men experience more violence than women - and that is because men are violent to men. Men are more likely to be killed (by a man) and men are raped too.

In my opinion, boy babies should not be circumcised and if they want to be circumcised they should decide to do that for themselves when they are old enough with possible input from their partner.

Boys and young men should not be chastised for liking or being like 'a girl'; or told to 'man up' rather than expressing pain.

Yet we don't hear anyone asking why are men having such a hard time in our society. I think part of the reason is men are taught not to complain, to hide/suppress their feelings, to pretend they cannot feel pain, and are told never to ask for help.

Nor are we asking why men are raping, committing domestic violence or murdering their wives.

These are some of the real issues men are facing (and by no means all of them) but instead we are worrying about them lying about their height and they are worrying about how many lines the female lead has in a trailer.

I'm guessing here but I think dysfunctional families is the norm in most western countries rather than functional families which are probably the anomaly.

And amongst all this dysfunction is a horror story that children are enduring.

We adults prefer to live in some kind of fantasy that everything is rosy if only we just don't talk about it.

Whether it is the result of stupid parents demanding their second amendment right to leave loaded guns around because well you know, it's their right, to fathers or step-fathers thinking their kids are 'asking for it' to inappropriate touching - to abuse and violence on the TV every night because it sells air time to corporate advertisers.

Why do we prefer to ignore the reality that there are a lot of really bad families out there?

And I think it's because it's incredibly difficult to talk about.

A friend of mine told me a friend of hers accused her of raping him - yes this is a man falsely accusing a woman of raping him. The friend of mine had never met the person who accused her of raping him - there could be no possible evidence of the rape possibly ever occurring. Anyway my friend told me she would tell a mutual friend (of theirs) about the alleged rape and the person she told was a man - the accusation did actually occur, the rape did not.

And my friend reported to me how awkward she felt telling another person about rape accusation. She asked the person she told how he felt about what he told her and he said he didn't want to believe it but he was less trustful of the person since my friend told him this mans false accusation.

My friend since told me that the man who accused her of raping him had tried to contact her via email but never apologized for saying such a horrific thing to her, so she thought it was him just trying to control her again, but that is no excuse for this man's dreadful behavior.

All these things are awful - we don't want to believe that those we give power to are capable of behaving so badly so its not surprising that when we tell our truths people don't want to believe us. But we must tell our truths because otherwise people will believe they do not happen.

I've heard of women believing that all rape was made up because they'd only ever heard of women supposedly falsely accusing men of rape - that was until women started telling her that they'd been raped.

The horrors that are happening are happening all the time and unless we tell people they are happening people won't know that they are.

One of the best things corporations did (for themselves) was get both the democrats and republicans competing for their campaign funding. How could they lose?

The same thing happened with men when women compete for men's time and attention.

Love is one of the biggest deals in the west, the bond that (in theory) forms the foundation of homes, and it is the peak of a woman's power to catch 'that' man and becomes princess for a day heralding her new life. In reality it only makes women useful for one thing - to love and be loved and then reproduce.

Especially with the only role for women in most films is being the love interest, needing to be rescued by some man who by the mere fact he rescues her means she'll fall magically in love with him and henceforth they'll live happily ever after.

Having a partner can be extremely useful. Having someone who is on your side, who will help you makes life easier. Most often because it allows us to multi-task, we can do more things than we might normally be able to do by ourselves. Our partner is that special someone we can trust. They help alleviate loneliness, we do stuff with them for entertainment, help us enjoy life and stop us from feeling sad when things don't go well.

Friends can often help with much of this. And sometimes friends can be as good or even better than a partner in many ways, depending on the partner and friends.

Our society conditions women to put up with atrocious behavior from men because women have been told it is better to have a man than to be without. Often that atrocious behavior constitutes domestic violence and addictions or even extramarital affairs or just plain bad behavior, like put downs or insults, because women after they hit a certain age don't want to feel the need to get another man.

Men are very emotional, much more emotional than women. This is a large reason we coddle men so much is because we don't know when they will get so emotional they'll grab a gun.

A lot of this bad behavior comes from women letting men get away with terrible behavior. Often we let bad behavior slide hoping it is a one-off thing but then it becomes increasingly bad and sustained that the woman ends up not being able to control her outrage at how bad the man's behavior has become and she scolds badly all the time whenever she sees the man. Is it her fault that the man's behavior is bad? No. The man should have controlled himself in the first place. These kinds of men will trumpet on about 'Love means never having to say they're sorry'. But of course that only works if they don't demand endless apologies for the slightest perceived insult for what they consider as bad behavior in others.

The problems come about because people don't treat others as equals. I remember one man telling me when I said I wanted to be treated like an equal, "no, you want to be treated like a woman". I don't even know what that means. This person didn't even respect me enough to listen to what I wanted and assumed he knew better.

We must train women and girls who want to form partnerships with men that they should NOT put up with appalling behavior from men or other women. Men must lift their game in dealing with relationships. Men have been getting off too easily for far too long and we should not put up with it anymore.

To me this is the equivalent of saying that the primary victim of suicide is the person who suicides, rather than those who are left behind to pick up the pieces and wonder what they did wrong. Often the people who love the person who suicides did nothing wrong and there was nothing they could do to stop it.

This is the same for the women left behind during war who have to pick up the pieces when the men they love don't come home from war. After all, it's never been a woman who started a war, or if a woman did start a war, I have no idea how long ago in history she lived.

Women don't start wars, men do.

War is a man thing that men do to all of us. And it wasn't until extremely recently were women even allowed to join the armed services in some countries. And when the men aren't there to protect those left behind: the elderly, women and children; when the women left behind  couldn't defend themselves and their children it was the women who got raped and/or killed, the surviving women where then left to pick up the pieces.

Clinton is right, women are once again the primary victim's of stupid shit men do.

The above image was posted from a men's rights twitter account. No surprises there. If only men would learn to control themselves rather than worry about controlling women. But the issue is really that men are victims of the whims of men, rich men who start wars for their own reasons - (aka to make money) and then wrap the war up in an increasingly thin veneer of ideological bullshit. 

But the purpose of men's rights groups is to force women back down to their station on the totem pole so the men will still feel more powerful than someone else. Of course women aren't the only people who serve the purpose of being pushed lower, non-white, non-christians, the poor, LGBTQ+, and even children will do too.

This is where our real problem comes in, we need to stop seeing people as merely positions in a hierarchy. We need to see all people as being equal to us.  When we see others as nothing other than vehicles to elevate us socially it will free us from the worry of making sure those who are supposed to be lower than us aren't raising above their station, that we can stop watching those above us to see what we are missing.

Women definitely have a propaganda problem. The media is owned and operated by men and consider men their principle audience. Women's TV is during the day which is usually extremely boring and relegated to a time when men are typically all out at work so can't see it.

Then there was "Sex in the City", a show that occurred in prime time and men were falling all over themselves telling women how awful the show was. (A show that was created by a man.) There were some elements of it based on how women behave but the whole 'Mr Big' thing was nonsense. Women may have a man they are interested in for awhile but they tend to move on pretty quickly when things don't work out. Of course not every woman will, but I am generalizing. Anyway, the show was directed at women and men just couldn't handle there being a show about women for women. Despite how many hours of TV is devoted pretty much exclusively to men, think sports - and how many channels are devoted to sports - and how many kinds of sports are there? Yes some women like sports because often the men they like like sports.

Women seldom complain about how much male TV is directed at men, whether it is action movies or general prime TV, women just are expected to enjoy the primary culture, mass media TV and they do so mainly without question. This is similar to other cultures, cable channels devoted to Asian, hispanic, and black american culture. These shows seldom make it onto white western male channels.

We already know if a woman to be considered a love interest she must be younger than 30, typically, and fit the usual physical requirements. Older women seldom qualify as the male fantasy love interest - because face it guys, the media is selling you the fantasy that the hero is a cypher for you and this is the dream girl you are going to get when you defeat the bad guys.

And for the most part, the media has destroyed what passes for female culture. Indeed it destroys subcultures - but we also knew that as we've seen native cultures destroyed in the wake of western culture.

But another more insidious aspect to the primary culture, as we know, demonizes outsiders, blacks, LGBTQ+, native Americans, and women.

If you see an article talking about Donald Trumps crazy supporters, the article will almost always have a picture of a woman on it, for example. The media loves crazy women, think about how crazy Michelle Bachmann's eyes were in the previous primaries. Or women are just labelled as crazy in general. When in reality women aren't necessarily crazy they are angry when men don't want them to be. And women go along with this because they think the media is acting on their behalf and is being representational but it is not.

And if women aren't being portrayed as being crazy, they are portrayed as completely facile. I still have no idea why that Kardashian woman is famous or the media's previous obsession with everything about Paris Hilton, and then they become no one.

But even more insidious is the need for more women to go to prison because the prison industrial complex must be fed and women are very much under represented in the prison system so women have been deliberately painted as more evil by the media so we won't flinch when we find out more and more women are being sent to jail and given harsher sentences. The best vehicle for painting women as evil are murder channels (which is what I call them) and they typically have women telling you how bad the women are. One such show is Deadly Women on Investigation Discovery. I quite like how completely over the top this show is and it often has me laughing. It has to draw on female murderers from several continents and from the past 100 years or so to be able to get the quotient of female murderers to make it's slim season.

On one episode they talk about a daughter who's boyfriend killed her mother and the daughter was painted as the truly evil one because 'she stepped over the corpse of her mother'. A police detective came on saying how he doesn't know how anyone could do anything so heinous as stepping over the corpse of their mother - I can only imagine the cop had lived an extremely sheltered life - the boyfriend who actually did the killing was less evil than the girl who 'stepped over' the corpse? I guess the cop missed Hitler and the holocaust and I don't know how many serial murderers...

Then there was this woman who complained about having her NYE ruined by someone having a heart attack. Why this is even covered I have no idea - although it is sad anyone would feel this way about another person dying, it is hardly news worthy especially when you consider Gary Southern (who?) who is a guy who poisoned the WV water supply with chemicals used in fracking. Or the lawyers who play legal football over Fukushima or over the death of a Walmart employee or the people governors of red states who let people die waiting for transplants because it cost too much or the CEOs of health insurance corporations who let people die by denying coverage for health care or...

The media has been eroding any power women have by telling us how evil women are and this has worked in the best interests of republicans because now when anyone says something outlandish about Hillary Clinton everyone, even left leaning voters, believe it's true.

Because mature, intelligent women who we should take seriously do not exist on TV.

Of course the media is really on the side of corporations, as we all saw with all those jokes about McDonalds being sued by a little old lady for spilling coffee on herself. Everyone was laughing about outrageous lawsuits. And if you were laughing about it, then you too were duped by the media because they are definitely on the side of corporations, and who owns corporations - men, rich white men and who runs those corporations - white men.

Why would women be seen as problematic for white men in corporations? Because women are often thought of as more ethical in business. This may be why there was such a propaganda campaign against Clinton in 2008, no one likes rocking the status quo. And we are used to the sweet little lies men running for office tell us. (Do people really think Sanders stands a chance in hell of getting his agenda met without massive corporate backlash? Meanwhile I rather suspect Clinton will not promise anything she doesn't think she could actually get delivered. Can you imagine the haranguing she'd get if she fails to deliver?)

Note that Walmart waged a war against paying a fine for letting its employ die and spent way more trying to avoid paying the fine than the fine - it did lose. Also Gary Southern faces up to 3 years (yes only 3 years) in jail and I bet its a minimum security jail or an ankle bracelet at home. But the media doesn't tell you these things, it's forgotten so we'll forget - but remember the insanity surrounding Casey Anthony - blown completely out of proportion to the awful things rich white men get away with. Yes I think children dying is terrible, but think about how much media outrage there is about W and Cheney now.