Tag: Featured

Toxic Femininity Exists and Gillette Is Feeding It

Luke-David Boswell | United Kingdom

I’m a bit late to the party on the Gillette advertisement. But after watching the video, I learned that it sums up the current political climate; a small, vocal group of radical feminists are speaking without a clear understanding of men. I’ll forever stand by the belief that feminism is for the equality of both sexes. However, this increasing group of self-proclaimed social justice warriors receives constant media catering. In many cases, this is due to merely being brash and vocal against people who disagree and searching for ways to label society as oppressive.

I can agree that the motives of Gillette are brave. Nonetheless, the way they depict toxic masculinity (which I believe exists) is obviously stereotypical and against the popular opinion. For this reason, I cannot fathom how it got approval. If we’re going to discuss toxic masculinity and take out all our energy focusing on how men are apparently the devil, then we also have to talk about toxic femininity.

What Is Toxic Femininity?

Toxic femininity is noticed in passive aggression, person-to-person manipulation and systemic manipulation of victim complexes. A frequent talking about weight in women’s circles, female on female ‘slut shaming’, and using the status of a woman to ruin a man’s reputation are all evident. Ignoring that toxic femininity exists is detrimental to feminism’s own principles of equality. It is an issue we must recognize as much as toxic masculinity is attracting attention.

Toxic masculinity is not at all barbecuing, having a beard, playing sport, hunting, fishing or even laddish humor. Instead, we should recognize toxic masculinity for what it is. A harmful mental aspect of being a man and the pressure to assimilate into the regimented image of manliness is a key reason why many men feel like they don’t fit into current society.

Real Instances of Toxic Masculinity

Toxic masculinity is present in the objectification of women, violence, and the ‘boys will be boys’ mentality. It also appears in an inability to express emotions and in homophobia when men express non-masculine traits. Hugging a male friend, crying or struggling with mental illness may sometimes get the response of ‘man up’. as a man is often countered with ‘man up’. These issues are the true exemplifications of toxic masculinity. The issue is much more complex than the single narrative that many in the feminist movement focus on.

My main problem is the ad focused on how men need to improve themselves and become like Gillette suggests: the best they can be. Instead, we should also focus on how men need help overcoming the restrictions society has placed on them. Gillette, though, chose to generalize about men, further adding to a narrative of hatred.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Advertisements

Will Oklahoma Become The 15th Constitutional Carry State?

Tom DiGennaro | United States

Less than two weeks ago, South Dakota joined the ranks of constitutional carry states. Oklahoma may be following suit. The Oklahoma House Public Safety Committee passed HB 2579, which allows for constitutional carry, nine votes to two. The Oklahoma State Senate is also working on a similar bill.

Last year, both houses of the Oklahoma State Legislature passed a similar constitutional carry bill. Former Governor Mary Fallin vetoed it. However, current Governor Kevin Stitt states he is absolutely going to sign the bill if it passes. In that case, Oklahoma will be the 15th Constitutional Carry state in the United States.

Constitutional Carry allows for the unlicensed purchase and carry of a handgun. This legislation removes the government mandated training which is part of the carry permit process. Many supporters in Oklahoma have expressed that the government mandated training is unnecessary, as most people will get training regardless of any law.

Stitt has expressed that business owners will still retain the right to ban the carry of firearms on their property. Obviously, carry will also be prohibited in public buildings, professional sporting events, casinos, and schools.

The growing number of states that are allowing constitutional carry is very promising for gun rights advocates. One of the most appealing features of Constitutional Carry is that it eliminates the government’s power to pick and choose who can carry. It also eliminates their power to discourage people from purchasing and carrying through application fees, mandatory training, and waiting periods. Constitutional Carry has its obvious benefits and hopefully, more and more states will allow it.


71 Republic prides itself on distinctly independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon. We appreciate your support.

Featured Image Source

 

Do Nazis Deserve Free Speech in America?

M. Buck | United States

There comes a point in political dissent where one might advocate for the erasure of someone else’s rights while relishing in their own. They might partition their speech as being worthy of liberal treatment. Meanwhile, they could see others as not deserving the same rights. If this sounds like a conundrum to you, you’re not alone.

To be specific about using social rights to try to erase those of others, take deplatforming on the Internet. One side uses the anonymity and liberality of the Internet to disenfranchise a group from their own (an Antifa member doxxing Nazis or vice versa, for example). One might conclude that the lack of consistency makes this unjust, but the notion is still worth looking at.

Free Speech and Violence

To start, we can analyze how deplatforming works and what it means. Antifa, a decentralized, militant organization of folks committed to ending fascism, understands how to doxx and deplatform effectively and rather stealthily. They infiltrate private groups of fascists and other far-right fringe groups, get them to reveal just enough personal information, and spread it online for all to see. They also engage in both offensive and defensive violence at rallies. Why are they doing this? What does it mean, and is it right?

The answer, as you’ll see, isn’t so clear-cut. Reading it plainly, you’ll see a double standard of who gets to talk and who doesn’t. This is expected, isn’t it? Really, any government will guarantee some compulsion in which citizens are forced to do something. It leads us to what underpins the entire argument of regulating free speech: is compulsion necessarily bad?

First of all, we could argue that compulsion is unjust because it goes against a natural sense of autonomy; the natural ability for someone to be free does not reconcile with force. Because of how natural autonomy is, it doesn’t make sense to coerce people into speaking “correctly”. After all, it will only lead to a damaged and unnatural state of mind. So, we let free speech exist absolutely.

But what about free speech existing for those who can monopolize it? For those who can use their free speech to occlude others from using theirs or do away with free speech entirely? Is seeking absolute free speech a good idea if it will end in recklessness sooner, rather than later?

Controlling Nazi Speech?

So, enters the argument for control. The people do not inherit goodness just naturally, they are molded that way. There is no natural state of autonomy because hierarchies exist naturally and we live under them. Thus, limiting free speech would create social cohesion so no group would have to question their existence in a state, thereby obstructing the government. (Note: this argument does rest on the assumption that certain people don’t know what’s good for them). 

But what about eventual questionings of the state? How would governments liquidate rebel political movements from influencing public opinion? Both arguments have their pitfalls, and one must evaluate these questions not to find an answer, but just to reach another conclusion.

To move back to the real world application, two violent groups who vehemently oppose each other are playing out the argument. Sure, it’s polarization, but one must remember that it is not banal. It is violently separating one group from the community and taking their ideologies out, with a knife or a cyber attack. Is this for good reason?

It’s not this article’s place to judge that. However, one must understand the brevity of the circumstances we are in currently and make just decisions. I encourage every reader to think and see for yourself.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Tulsi Gabbard: The Ideal New Face of the Democratic Party

Ian Brzeski | United States

Both the Democratic and Republican parties need a change in leadership. They both need to break away from the establishment and become the parties they claim to be. There was a point in time where the parties stood for principles they truly believed in; however, this piece has long since passed. Though both parties are guilty of this, The Democratic party has specifically failed to live up to its promoted ideal of being the “anti-war” party.  Through the party leaders’ continual lying and corruption, the Democratic Party needs a fresh face to restore some of the party’s integrity, and that face should be Tulsi Gabbard.

The Democratic Party has failed when it has fallen under the control of those who think in terms of dollars instead of human values – Franklin D. Roosevelt

Tulsi Gabbard and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Once a party that seemed to care for the citizens, the Democratic Party has now become a joke due to deceitful politicians who have succumbed to the evils and temptations of the establishment. Power corrupts and money talks, and these colloquialisms are more relevant now than ever before.

The Democratic Party needs to replace the outdated and corrupt leaders of Pelosi and Schumer with the new. If they want to align with their boasted ideology they claim to have, they have to replace them with the likes of Tulsi Gabbard and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who care for the welfare of the people and maintain consistent values without compromise.

Of course, I am not saying you have to agree with Gabbard or Ocasio-Cortez on political issues. In fact, you could disagree with any one of them on virtually every single point they stand for. However, even feeling that way; you cannot dispute that they care for their constituents and seem to uphold values the Democratic Party claims to prioritize. I have respect for both, but Tulsi Gabbard is better suited to lead the party.

An Ideal Figurehead

Gabbard is a better fit than Ocasio-Cortez for a few reasons. First of all, Gabbard makes more of an effort to stress pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan. She also vehemently advocates for allowing Venezuela to maintain its sovereignty. Ocasio-Cortez does not make as much of an effort to talk about these issues, as she seems to focus her efforts on internal matters.

With people like Gabbard at the forefront, the Democratic Party would start to become more respectable by bringing back their “anti-war” values. Another reason Gabbard is a better fit is that she is more of a moderate Democrat while Ocasio-Cortez states that she is a democratic socialist. As intriguing as radical ideas are, they are not usually politically wise to promote. There would be more tension amongst people in the party. Most importantly, though, Gabbard holds steadfast to her beliefs and doesn’t succumb to pressure from political parties.

Values Over Party Politics

Tulsi Gabbard is not afraid to call Donald Trump out when he does something wrong, but she also is not afraid to praise him when she feels it is right to do so. People like her are next to impossible to come by today, not just in politics but also in everyday life.

Take, for instance, never Trumpers who will cry about every little thing he has ever done. Believe it or not, the man sometimes makes good decisions. You also have the people who worship Donald Trump in the same way that the poor people in Medellin worshipped Pablo Escobar. To them, the man can do no wrong. Famous conservative pundits who sometimes criticize Trump often suffer bitter blowback.

Many people in both groups here may not like Gabbard. She slams Trump often, so the latter group is likely to take issue. But she also applauds Trump sometimes. Thus, the former group also has reason to be wary. Regardless, Tulsi Gabbard is still able to maintain her values with her original thoughts. Without a doubt, we need more people like her representing the people of the United States. Whether you agree or disagree with them, the inherent value that comes from a genuine person who is committed to the betterment of society far outweighs any potential tiffs one may have over party affiliation.

Warranted Criticisms

I support Tulsi Gabbard simply because she is the best option for the DNC. Despite this, many people have claimed she is not who she seems. One common criticism is that Gabbard is not truly anti-war and really is in fact quite hawkishEvidence of certain statements she has made as well as evidence from her voting records supports this notion. Thus, it appears she is not unilaterally opposed to war.

However, she is better than the other democrat representatives. She has some foreign policy opinions that I feel hold weight. Tulsi brings a kind of non-interventionist background with her, unlike most Democratic leaders, and I think that this is what the DNC needs more of.

I am not a Democrat and I don’t agree with Tulsi Gabbard on many of her claims. Certainly, she is not my ideal candidate. Despite those things, because of her passionate emotional and logical appeals to pull troops out of Afghanistan and Syria and her unwillingness to back down when faced with pressure from those in and outside of her party, she has garnered my respect.

She is not afraid to critique people she historically agrees with when she truly believes they are wrong. She is certainly not one to shy away from praising her opponents when they deserve it. We need more of this in politics if we ever hope to diminish the hatred that comes with political polarization. Therefore, Tulsi Gabbard should be the new face of the Democratic Party.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Why Socialist Policies Appeal to More of the Youth

Jack Parkos | United States

It is no secret that more of today’s American youth prefer socialism than older citizens. After all, Bernie Sanders gathered up a large majority of his supporters from millennials and the underage. According to University of Chicago study, 62% of Americans between the age of 18-34 believe that  “we need a strong government to handle today’s complex economic problems”. Another study from the Victims of Communism foundation found that 44% of millennials would prefer to live in a country with socialist policies.

The question soon arises of why the youth seem to show affection towards a system that has historically failed. The answer, though, is not so simple.

Socialist Policies and Time Preference

Time preference theory states that with all things being equal, a person prefers current wealth over future wealth. Different factors can influence one’s time preference (such as if the wealth will increase or decrease over time). Younger people tend to have a higher time preference (meaning they prefer current wealth over future wealth). Thus, many millennials will fall under this category.

This same trait is evident, generally speaking, in their politics. Socialist policies simply tend to reflect higher time preference. Take, for instance, the substation of education. In the short run, it will lower or eliminate costs for college. However, in the future, it will decrease the wealth through higher prices and tax increases, but also increase inflation rates and debt. The youth, on average not having as much of an ability to look towards the future, are more likely to take the current wealth now and ignore future consequences.

Socialism in general has a trend for higher time preference. After all, the need to loot wealth from the “haves” and give to the “have nots” is a direct link of this theory. Why work or save when you can take from those who already have done so?. But this mindset, though materially rewarding initially, is dangerous. It will negatively impact on the economy, as the incentive to produce will fall; when people can keep less of what they produce, they will not have the same motivation to do so. Thus, it goes almost without saying that socialist policies will harm an economy, generally speaking.

A False Definition of Capitalism

It is also worth noting that many socialists paint a false picture of critical issues; what they criticize about the free market really has nothing to do with one, but instead is due to government interference. The cronyism that plagues the nation is not the fault of free market capitalism. The free market does not include lobbying, corporate bailouts, or subsidizing industries. America’s market is not a pure free market like the left claims it to be. Therefore, it makes no sense to condemn capitalism in the first place, when we have yet to see it.

Many millennials blame the free market for the rising price of healthcare. In fact, though, the federal government takes much of the blame here. In 1960, healthcare took up just five percent of the GDP, but in 2017, it was 17.9 percent. Healthcare costs have risen faster than the average annual income. What happened between 1960 and the modern day? In short, the government expanded and subsided the healthcare industry.

Inadequate Government Healthcare

If the government ran healthcare completely, it would be a disaster. The Veterans of Foreign Wars’ healthcare is notorious for its poor quality; imagine this for all healthcare across the whole country. Also, Canada’s healthcare system has many detriments. Our northern neighbors provide healthcare for free to every citizen, at the expense of the government.

However, consequences have been disastrous. This has lead to longer waiting times and a decrease in healthcare. In fact, waits for medically necessary procedures have more than doubled in 25 years. Furthermore, taxes in Canada are significantly higher than those in America. The last thing that our country needs is to go down this path.

Though most Americans do not support a truly free market, the number of people completely disregarding capitalism and praising socialist policies is increasing, particularly among youth. If predictions that millennials will have bigger impacts of elections is true, we should be worried about the future.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.