[Discussion] Feminism and social justice, plus FAQ!

This thread is for discussing feminist issues--from the narrow meaning (a movement for social justice in terms of gender equality) to the broader meaning (a movement for social justice, period), and from the scope of issues in gaming and geek culture to kyriarchy in general.

Basic questions are allowed here for now, we will split out a Q&A thread should it become necessary.

And it'll all be enforced in a manner akin to the Salem Witch Trials.

Rat Boy wrote:

And it'll all be enforced in a manner akin to the Salem Witch Trials.

But racist.

NathanialG wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

And it'll all be enforced in a manner akin to the Salem Witch Trials.

But racist.

The first person accused of witchcraft, Tituba, was a local slave. If there's an example of American injustice, it's probably safe to just assume racism was involved.

The monster in me is gleefully looking forward to rich white men getting caught sending their mistresses to other states or countries and suffering some consequences.

Mixolyde wrote:

The monster in me is gleefully looking forward to rich white men getting caught sending their mistresses to other states or countries and suffering some consequences.

While I feel the same way, the "rich white men" bit probably will protect them.

Eleima wrote:

What people need to understand is that they aren’t banning abortions. They’re banning safe abortions.

I can’t stress this enough. Abortions have been happening one way or another since the dawn of time. Except we’re putting people in danger when we’re banning abortions because they WILL seek them out, whatever the cost to themselves.

I don't recall which podcast made this point, but I heard an interview with someone who'd been a nurse in 1973. Young women with "mysterious" abdominal injuries had been common, and suddenly they stopped.

Mixolyde wrote:

The monster in me is gleefully looking forward to rich white men getting caught sending their mistresses to other states or countries and suffering some consequences.

You are completely deluding yourself if you believe those men are actually going to “suffer some consequences.”
They’ll throw money at the problem and then ignore it if it doesn’t “go away.”
Heck, if anything, there’s no way they’ll send or take them anywhere. They’ll just hand them a wad of cash and tell them to “take care of it.”

qaraq wrote:
Eleima wrote:

What people need to understand is that they aren’t banning abortions. They’re banning safe abortions.

I can’t stress this enough. Abortions have been happening one way or another since the dawn of time. Except we’re putting people in danger when we’re banning abortions because they WILL seek them out, whatever the cost to themselves.

I don't recall which podcast made this point, but I heard an interview with someone who'd been a nurse in 1973. Young women with "mysterious" abdominal injuries had been common, and suddenly they stopped.

I have grandmothers and great aunts who had these done, sometimes by their own husbands, on the kitchen table. You probably do too, statistically.

Mixolyde wrote:

The monster in me is gleefully looking forward to rich white men getting caught sending their mistresses to other states or countries and suffering some consequences.

I know it can feel demoralizing to watch rights taken away from your fellow Americans and it can feel good to offer pithy snark or anger, but you don't have to do this. It's okay to just be sad. It's really f*cking sad and we should find ways to fight it instead of giving in to useless bromides and anger. Or we should just mourn since this most likely won't affect most of us men directly.

DSGamer wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

The monster in me is gleefully looking forward to rich white men getting caught sending their mistresses to other states or countries and suffering some consequences.

I know it can feel demoralizing to watch rights taken away from your fellow Americans and it can feel good to offer pithy snark or anger, but you don't have to do this. It's okay to just be sad. It's really f*cking sad and we should find ways to fight it instead of giving in to useless bromides and anger. Or we should just mourn since this most likely won't affect most of us men directly.

Yeah, I know. Ugh. I do feel sad, and angry, and disappointment. I want bad things to happen to the men who did this, but I know they won't. Spending some of their ill-gotten cash to make problems go away really isn't a consequence for them, it's just business.

Sorry for my outburst. Especially in this thread where it doesn't belong.

Not sure how the new abortion law with anyone being able to sue could hold up in court given that "anyone" wouldn't have standing.

Nevin73 wrote:

Not sure how the new abortion law with anyone being able to sue could hold up in court given that "anyone" wouldn't have standing.

Its about bankrupting clinics, not about making sense or providing justice.

Supreme Court weighs in, with midnight nonsense.

Texas Republicans devised this convoluted scheme to avoid judicial review of their ban, which blatantly violates binding Supreme Court precedent protecting the right to abortion before viability (around 23 weeks). And, in Sotomayor’s words, the ultra-conservative majority’s decision to let the law stand anyway “rewards” these “tactics.” Abortion providers tried to work around Republicans’ scheme by suing the judges and clerks tasked with executing the ban, as well as an individual who indicated that he would sue an abortion “abettor.” Nonetheless, the majority claimed that these providers failed to make a “strong showing” that their legal arguments against SB 8 would be “likely to succeed on the merits,” complaining about the “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” of the case. After months spent rewriting the court’s own rules by awarding themselves the power to intervene in cases that present all manner of “novel” legal questions—including COVID restrictions and the eviction moratorium—the conservative majority decided it was powerless to halt a direct attack on Roe. And it did so with a thinly reasoned one-paragraph order handed down in the dead of night.

All four dissenters—the three liberal justices joined by Chief Justice John Roberts— wrote opinions condemning different aspects of the majority’s order. The most candid and outwardly furious, Sotomayor’s dissent declared that her colleagues had “opted to bury their heads in the sand” in their “stunning” order.

Just feeling the urge to remind us all before we get too far to be mindful that this is the women's feminism thread.

Antichulius wrote:

Just feeling the urge to remind us all before we get too far to be mindful that this is the women's feminism thread.

With this in mind, I wanted to post a question I have about the Texas law.

The law permits “any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state” to file a lawsuit against an abortion provider or anyone who “aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.” A plaintiff who prevails in such a lawsuit is entitled to bounty of at least $10,000, paid by the person they sued.

Wouldn't it be likely that the person filing suit would incur > $10,000 in legal fees, making the bounty of questionable value? Particularly as the bounty pays out only if the lawsuit prevails.

I realize that this won't stop well funded organizations from firing lawsuits off left right and center, but wouldn't it put a crimp in Jimmy McArsehole, private citizen, doing so?

No, they considered that. The plaintiff can ask for legal fees. The defendant cannot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/u...

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, and even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

I suppose I should have expected that extra f*ck-you. Thanks for the clarification.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

The sheer... f*ck I can't even think of the right words. Absolute rage.

The party of "tort reform" my ass.