I've seen the compass, but in real life conversation when people say left or right they don't exclusively mean economic views. For example, access to abortion or LGBT rights are generally seen as supported by the left and opposed by the right.
You're right it's reductive, and really there are many dimensions to political thought.
I read talkingpointsmemo.com most days. It's focused on US politics, but I like that it gives a little more context coming from a perspective fairly similar to mine.
Thanks! I'm personally in favor of doing things for knowledge's sake. That said, what is the stated practical benefit when some government body is writing a check?
Funny, I just commented elsewhere that my credit unions have always offered great rates on auto loans. Where are you located? I'm in the states.
I previously had a dealer be like "let me see if my guys can give you a better financing rate" and they did (slightly) than a bank rate I had secured. But since then I've financed a few times with a credit union and they've never been able to beat the rate.
In the U.S. most credit unions are regional, if you go to a branch you can withdraw cash easily, or they'll have agreements with ATM networks where you can withdraw cash for a fee, just like banks do.
In my daily life my credit union is indistinguishable from a bank, with the exception that I've had a few auto loans from my credit unions and they've always offered a lower interest rate than anything a bank or car dealership can beat. They also gave me a discounted rate because I was buying an electric car.
Do you think any woman who says this would intentionally go up to a bear in the woods? There's not a need for education about the dangers of wildlife. That's not the conversation being had, so people who try to talk to a woman about that in this particular context (online meme) are missing the point.
Think the spirit of my comments may not be making it through - I'm not seriously making a statistical argument, was just responding to the other commenter saying let's get pedantic.
Ultimately, women feel how they feel, and if they say they'd rather be stuck in the woods with a bear than a man, there's no sense in arguing with them.
What would success there look like, you convince a woman "no, you're not concerned about the intentions of strange men in the woods"?
If a woman says "I'd rather be stuck in the woods with a bear" we should receive that as information. That's telling us that many women have serious concerns about their safety with men. And instead of telling them "no you're wrong for feeling how you feel" a better response could be "sorry you've had bad experiences" or even just saying nothing.
If we want to get really pedantic we have to look at stats specifically for cases where a woman was in the woods, with no other entity besides a man or a bear. With it conveniently being impossible to compile that information, I'd bet the ratio of assaults per encounter would be higher with the men than the bears.
I've seen the compass, but in real life conversation when people say left or right they don't exclusively mean economic views. For example, access to abortion or LGBT rights are generally seen as supported by the left and opposed by the right.
You're right it's reductive, and really there are many dimensions to political thought.