Re: UC Berkeley: Free speech lawsuit is unfounded   

It's not the police department's job to rescue people who run into the fray of a brawl they created. Nobody was fenced in. People were free to walk out of the park and avoid violence at any time. Police did their best to take away weapons and control the crowd so it didn't spill over to other parts of town or hurt non-participants. These alt right militia groups are growing and getting more dangerous. But we get another chance to experience that when they return to Berkeley on August 27th. They are already recruiting groups from all over the country.


          Go Gorgo!   
Good to see a young Australian woman joining the ranks of the alt right women of YouTube. She goes by the moniker of Gorgo. Hope you enjoy.



          “Youth” Mob Violence Hits Church Pastored by SBC President Who Helped Facilitate Anti-Alt Right Resolution   
by Narrative Collapse Steve Gaines (see image below) is the 61st president of the Southern Baptist Convention and recently officiated their 2017 annual national meeting in Arizona. During the event, he pulled all the stops to get a resolution passed that condemns the Alt Right. After the resolution committee initially rejected it, he ordered an […]
          Local Alt-Right Activist Joey Gibson Says He Quit His Job After Antifa Pressure   
by Dirk VanderHart

Joey Gibson speaking at a pro-Trump rally he organized in Vancouver in April.
Joey Gibson speaking at a pro-Trump rally he organized in Vancouver in April. Doug Brown

Earlier this week, the group Rose City Antifa began an online campaign to claim Joey Gibson's job. It apparently worked.

Gibson is best known as the Vancouver-based alt-right vlogger who organizes events like the June 4 "free speech rally" in downtown Portland (and another this evening, be sure to follow Doug Brown on Twitter). But until today he was also a broker with the company Summa North Real Estate.

This evening, while prepping for a rally he's called near the Waterfront Blues Festival, Gibson told reporters he'd left his job because of coordinated pressure from leftist activists.


That's reflected in Summa's website, which has removed reference to Gibson's employment that was visible earlier this week. You can still see a cached version of the page here.

Rose City Antifa called its supporters to arms on Tuesday, advocating that people "jam" Summa's phone lines with requests that Gibson be let go. Here's the post:

PHONE JAM!!!! Joey Gibson is the primary organizer for the spree of Alt Right rallies attended by white supremacists, Nazis, and bigots across the Pacific Northwest.

His job as a real estate broker affords him a flexible schedule and ample income, so that he can devote the majority of his time to putting on these hate fests. Each of these events has caused a spike of bigoted aggression in Portland. So far those incidents have included two murders, a racist intimidation campaign at an elementary school, bomb threats to a local community gathering of people of color, and an attempt to assault LBGTQ people at Pride.

This must end.

Summa North has the ability to stop enabling this activity by refusing to do business with a violent Jim Jones wannabee. Please take a moment to contact them and tell them what you think:

The message was circulated on sites such as pugetsoundanarchists.org and redneckrevolt.org.

Rose City Antifa promptly cheered the news about Gibson's employment this afternoon, though in the group's telling of events he was fired.


Gibson has become an ever-more-visible presence in Portland's recently tense political landscape. At first running sparsely attended Donald Trump rallies in Vancouver, Gibson's Patriot Prayer group has gotten more ambitious. It led a right-wing march in Montavilla in late April—an event where accused MAX murderer Jeremy Christian showed up to bellow racial slurs.

And Gibson set Portland's leadership on edge earlier this month, when his group got permits from the federal government to hold a "free speech rally" at downtown's Terry Schrunk Plaza featuring prominent alt-right figures from around the country. That event, on the heels of the racially charged TriMet killings, drew hefty counterdemonstrations on all sides but was largely devoid of violence.

The following week, when Gibson's group participated in a "March Against Sharia" in Seattle, skirmishes broke out in the streets. That event was initially planned in Portland, but organizers moved it under pressure from city officials.

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]


          Comment on Looking For A Match In A Sonny Gray Trade by wellhitball   
Unless you think Theo was bluffing, no player on the active roster will be dealt right now. He's proven himself to be pretty reliable in public statements.
          "Modern Sexism" in the 2016 Presidential Elections.   

Introduction


A poll was carried out right after the 2016 presidential general election by the Diane D. Blair Center of Southern Politics and Society at the University of Arkansas.  The poll sampled 3,668 individuals, and we are told that the sample is representative.

Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields used the data from that poll to study the effect of "modern sexism" on the presidential election results, both those from the primaries and from the general election.  The short findings from that study:

...sexism absolutely did matter. Trump’s voters were more sexist than Clinton’s (and Ted Cruz voters were even more sexist than Trump voters). Republicans were far more sexist than Democrats. White respondents were more sexist than black Americans and Latinos. Female respondents, not to be outdone, were also quite sexist! And Bernie primary voters who didn’t vote for Clinton in the general were more sexist than those who did.


What Is Modern Sexism?



Before we look more closely at those findings, it's necessary to understand what this study means by "modern sexism:"

Most people who have sexist or racist beliefs will not answer poll questions about those honestly, for obvious reasons.  Researchers have tried to get around that problem by using proxy questions or assertions, the kinds which correlate with negative beliefs about people of color and/or about women (1).  For the sexism part, the Blair Center poll used the following assertions, asking, for each of them, whether a respondent agreed or disagreed with them and how strongly (2):

  • Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for “equality.”
  • Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
  • Feminists are seeking for women to have more power than men.
  • When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against.
  • Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United States.

In what sense could those assertions be seen as sexist?  Note that the first, the second and the fourth contain those little words "many," "most" and "typically."  Taken together, those three assertions spell out a dismal view of women, especially of women in the labor force, in education and in the public sphere.  The third turns feminism into a search for a matriarchy, not for equality,  and the last assertion argues that women already are equal in the United States, which makes any further feminist activism an attempt to dominate over men.

My first reaction to that list of assertions was to notice how much it shared with the MRA sites where women ("all" women or "many" women) are "typically" seen as vile creatures not deserving of any kind of equality and where feminism is certainly viewed as a plot for enslaving men.

It's only the last assertion you won't often find on those sites, because at least the more vicious sites don't see anything wrong with women having fewer rights, given that women are viewed as lesser human beings.  It's not really possible to discriminate against women when women deserve less than men.

My second reaction was to remember that the famous Alt Right site Breitbart.com (the home of our Dear Leader's companion, Stephen Bannon) often publishes stories with those very messages about the perfidy of women in general and of feminists in particular.

Finally, my third reaction was to recall all the biased conservative articles I have read (and dissected here) which argue that, say, the earnings gap between men and women is a totally imaginary one, that women earn less because they choose to earn less and so on.




The Results:  Modern Sexism Levels For Various Voter Groups in the 2016 Elections 


Given my reactions, the actual findings of the study came as a bit of a shock: Though the plurality of the 3,668 respondents gave, on average,  nonsexist answers to those five assertions (47.1%), more than one third (36.2%) had answers which gave them an average sexist score.

The following three tables summarize the results about the degree of modern sexism in the poll. The first shows them for everyone, the second for men and the third for women.  The orange color refers to the percentage of nonsexist answers, the green to the percentage of sexist answers and the yellow to neutral answers:










A few comments are worth making about the tables:

First, the majority of women in the poll (52.5%) gave, on average, nonsexist answers, while only 41.2% of the men in the poll did, and women scored somewhat higher on the nonsexist scale than men in all the demographic, regional and political groupings. 

Second, Democrats (65.2%) were much more likely to come across as nonsexist than Independents (38.4%) or, especially, Republicans (30.8%).

Third, African-Americans (both men and women) (59.0%) gave less sexist answers than Whites (46.1%) or Latinx (42.3%).

Fourth, the most sexist demographic group among men consists of Whites (44.2%), whereas the most sexist demographic group among women consists of Latinas (36.3%) (3).

Fifth, the highest percentages of sexist answer averages came from those who identified as Republican, both among men (56.3%) and among women (49.9%).

These results further clarify the finding that Donald Trump's pussy-grabbing comments didn't bother a sufficient number of Republican women for most of them not to vote for him. Erin C. Cassese, who has also studied modern sexism, notes (on the basis of a different data source):

Republican women score significantly higher on modern sexism than both male and female Democrats, though they score lower than male Republicans. This finding is instructive in light of Trump’s alleged “women problem,” in that Republican women may have been less likely than Democrats to situate his comments in terms of a broader systems of discrimination. While modern sexism influences policy attitudes for Republican women, they are just as ideologically extreme as Republican men and just at likely to demonstrate partisan loyalty at the polls.

Indeed, in the Blair Center poll Republican women come across as more sexist than either Democratic or Independent men.  That finding teaches us not to assume that women cannot be sexist against their own gender (4).

So far the results I have addressed apply to the general election.  The results from the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries are also of interest:





Note the very large differences between those scores.  The United States indeed appears to consist of two countries with very different values.

Bernie Sanders' primary voters have the lowest average modern sexism score, but the small minority of Sanders primary voters who went for Trump in the general elections do have a fairly high average sexism score:




The Take-Home Lessons From This Study?

Are there any? 

The large differences in the average measures of modern sexism between Republicans, Democrats and Independents are worth keeping in mind: 

No, the Democrats are not every bit as bad on this issue as the Republicans, and  when participating in debates about the various reasons why a slight majority of white women voted for Trump despite his pussy-grabbing comments it's good to remember that those would be Republican white women and an openly sexist president doesn't look that outrageous to almost half of them.

One caveat about that finding:  This particular poll was carried out right after the general elections where the Democrats ran the (first) female candidate and the Republicans ran the (first) gloatingly sexist male candidate.  The allegiance to one's party may have (subconsciously) affected the answers to the modern sexism assertions.  If the race had been between a Republican woman and a Democratic man the party gap in the modern sexism measures could have been smaller.

It's also worth thinking about how party affiliation and modern sexism (as well as modern sexism) end up correlated with each other.  For example, sexists are more likely to join the Republican Party, because its platform includes the control of women's sexuality and opposition to any measures which might counteract sex discrimination against women in education and labor markets.

But it's equally possible that those who have joined the Republican Party will then become more sexist, given today's political information bubbles.  Anyone who gets his or her news mostly from Fox News (with its Barbie-rules about female broadcasters) or Breitbart.com or Rush Limbaugh or other right-wing sources gets frequent updates on the horrors of feminism, on fake rape claims and on other weaknesses of the female sex.

Finally, lest one lose all belief in humanity, note that the majority of people do come across as nonsexist in that study.



-----

(1)  The modern racism measures are constructed in a parallel way by creating assertions with which the respondents are asked to agree or disagree.  Two examples:

"It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites."

And

"Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.

(2)  The researchers turned the agreement or disagreement levels to these assertions into numbers, added up those numbers and then averaged the result over the five assertions.  The resulting measure is used in the tables I look at later in this post:

Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neither/neutral,” “agree,” or “strongly agree.” Depending on their answers, respondents held a cumulative Modern Sexism score ranging from 5 to 25. Giving a “strongly disagree” answer to all five statements resulted in the minimum score of 5, whereas a “strongly agree” answer on all five questions resulted in the maximum score of 25. Answering “neutral” to all five statements resulted in a score of 15. Thus, any score over 15 indicates that the respondent holds some cumulative level of Modern Sexism, while any cumulative score under 15 indicates a general lack of Modern Sexism.
(3)  I have no hypothesis about the reason for that last finding, given that Latinas are more likely to vote for Democrats.  It could have something to do with the impact of the Catholic Church?  Or more recent entry into the country from perhaps a more patriarchal society? 

(4)  The above quote also reminded me of a conversation I had with a very elderly American white working-class Republican-voting woman about a decade ago.  She told me how she had been sexually harassed at work when she was young, and she even mentioned a boss who had tried to rape her, but she did not connect those events to anything wider (e.g. broader systems of discrimination).  They were just "how things are."  She saw no need to change anything, probably, because of that lack of wider consciousness.  Without it, each experience remains purely personal.

(5)  Maxwell and Shields also construct logit equations for predicting how an otherwise average voter of a certain type might vote if his or her level of modern sexism varied.  I'm not discussing that part of the study in this post.  The reasons are statistical and model-specific: I believe too many of the independent variables (party affiliation, modern sexism, modern racism, ideology, biblical beliefs) are correlated with each other for the interpretation of a specific coefficient to be very meaningful.  But your mileage might vary. The full equations are downloadable as the Appendix from the study site.








 





          Local Alt-Right Activist Joey Gibson Says He Quit His Job After Antifa Pressure   
by Dirk VanderHart

Joey Gibson speaking at a pro-Trump rally he organized in Vancouver in April.
Joey Gibson speaking at a pro-Trump rally he organized in Vancouver in April. Doug Brown

Earlier this week, the group Rose City Antifa began an online campaign to claim Joey Gibson's job. It apparently worked.

Gibson is best known as the Vancouver-based alt-right vlogger who organizes events like the June 4 "free speech rally" in downtown Portland (and another this evening, be sure to follow Doug Brown on Twitter). But until today he was also a broker with the company Summa North Real Estate.

This evening, while prepping for a rally he's called near the Waterfront Blues Festival, Gibson told reporters he'd left his job because of coordinated pressure from leftist activists.


That's reflected in Summa's website, which has removed reference to Gibson's employment that was visible earlier this week. You can still see a cached version of the page here.

Rose City Antifa called its supporters to arms on Tuesday, advocating that people "jam" Summa's phone lines with requests that Gibson be let go. Here's the post:

PHONE JAM!!!! Joey Gibson is the primary organizer for the spree of Alt Right rallies attended by white supremacists, Nazis, and bigots across the Pacific Northwest.

His job as a real estate broker affords him a flexible schedule and ample income, so that he can devote the majority of his time to putting on these hate fests. Each of these events has caused a spike of bigoted aggression in Portland. So far those incidents have included two murders, a racist intimidation campaign at an elementary school, bomb threats to a local community gathering of people of color, and an attempt to assault LBGTQ people at Pride.

This must end.

Summa North has the ability to stop enabling this activity by refusing to do business with a violent Jim Jones wannabee. Please take a moment to contact them and tell them what you think:

The message was circulated on sites such as pugetsoundanarchists.org and redneckrevolt.org.

Rose City Antifa promptly cheered the news about Gibson's employment this afternoon, though in the group's telling of events he was fired.


Gibson has become an ever-more-visible presence in Portland's recently tense political landscape. At first running sparsely attended Donald Trump rallies in Vancouver, Gibson's Patriot Prayer group has gotten more ambitious. It led a right-wing march in Montavilla in late April—an event where accused MAX murderer Jeremy Christian showed up to bellow racial slurs.

And Gibson set Portland's leadership on edge earlier this month, when his group got permits from the federal government to hold a "free speech rally" at downtown's Terry Schrunk Plaza featuring prominent alt-right figures from around the country. That event, on the heels of the racially charged TriMet killings, drew hefty counterdemonstrations on all sides but was largely devoid of violence.

The following week, when Gibson's group participated in a "March Against Sharia" in Seattle, skirmishes broke out in the streets. That event was initially planned in Portland, but organizers moved it under pressure from city officials.

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]


          Re: The Detransitioners: They Were Transgender, Until They Weren't   
Wow. This article seems like is was designed to be clickbait. Really brings everyone to the yard, doesn't it?

Is the author of this article transgender, herself? Though this writing is praised as being even-handed, IMO it comes dangerously close to discounting the experiences & even the validity of actual transgender people. There's a passing mention of a Swedish statistic showing a very small percentage of people with transition regret, but most of this seems to imply that people *choose* to be transgender; it's just a phase. Good grief, it was a scant few years ago we were saying that about gay people.

Is gender partly a societal construct? Sure. Would easing the restrictions that those constructs place on individuals make the world a better place? Absolutely. But by publishing an article whose TL/DR seems to be: "Trans people. Are they really real?" - at a time when things are so politically fraught, & the stakes are so high, as regards the physical safety of trans people - IDK. These words play into the views of the alt right & trans excluding radical feminists & gives fuel to people who want to argue that transgender people are mentally ill. The timing of the publication of this seems irresponsible of the Stranger. YMMV.

Gender is having a weird (& to my mind, happily) more fluid place in some areas of the country. Genderqueer young people confused my middle-aged brain for about five minutes, but y'know..good for them, that they have a word for those feelings, that flexibility. For some people it is a binary, though, & they feel alienated & alone on the wrong side of it. Their rights are being challenged, taken away & suppressed. I haven't heard of the experts quoted in the article, either. Will be Googling them.

Congratulations, Stranger, on getting those hot clicks. When some trans person comes out to their family/job/friends/etc & this article is presented as proof to them they're wrong, I hope the ad revenue is worth it.


Posted by Eva Hopkins