The Conservative War On Women

rosenhane wrote:
Malor wrote:

Yet more evidence that it's about the sluts, not the babies:

When Parody Becomes Reality: The 'Spilled Semen' Amendment

Some good stuff there that I won't quote -- it's worth reading. But I found this especially on point as far as this thread is concerned:

In solidarity with his colleague, Democrat Jim Wilson proposed an additional amendment to the bill that would make the father of an unborn child financially responsible for its mother's health care, housing, transportation and nourishment while she is pregnant. Unsurprisingly, Wilson's amendment also failed in a Republican-dominated Senate.

I mean, how much more f*cking blatant can you get? Try to include fathers in the responsibility, and it goes nowhere. But force women to go through a involuntary procedure involving penetration, which constitutes rape by most standards, and it passes to conservative cheering.

This is what your team is doing, conservative GWJers.

We are not fighting about the babies.

I'm more concerned about the idea of treating women as cattle is written into that amendment as well. It sounds like once you impregnate a woman, you own her like one would own a pet.

Wait wait wait wait (and about 200 more "waits") . . . how does making the male half of the child-creation process financially responsible for the pregnancy mean he "owns her"? How is this just not about responsibility for the man instead of making it the woman's problem?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
rosenhane wrote:
Malor wrote:

Yet more evidence that it's about the sluts, not the babies:

When Parody Becomes Reality: The 'Spilled Semen' Amendment

Some good stuff there that I won't quote -- it's worth reading. But I found this especially on point as far as this thread is concerned:

In solidarity with his colleague, Democrat Jim Wilson proposed an additional amendment to the bill that would make the father of an unborn child financially responsible for its mother's health care, housing, transportation and nourishment while she is pregnant. Unsurprisingly, Wilson's amendment also failed in a Republican-dominated Senate.

I mean, how much more f*cking blatant can you get? Try to include fathers in the responsibility, and it goes nowhere. But force women to go through a involuntary procedure involving penetration, which constitutes rape by most standards, and it passes to conservative cheering.

This is what your team is doing, conservative GWJers.

We are not fighting about the babies.

I'm more concerned about the idea of treating women as cattle is written into that amendment as well. It sounds like once you impregnate a woman, you own her like one would own a pet.

Wait wait wait wait (and about 200 more "waits") . . . how does making the male half of the child-creation process financially responsible for the pregnancy mean he "owns her"? How is this just not about responsibility for the man instead of making it the woman's problem?

I do think that the man should only have to pay for half of the procedures, not all of them. Courts are already unfair to men once the child is born, we can at least aim for equality before the child is born.

Yonder wrote:

I do think that the man should only have to pay for half of the procedures, not all of them. Courts are already unfair to men once the child is born, we can at least aim for equality before the child is born.

He should have thought about that before he got her pregnant. If he wasn't willing to pay the consequences he should have kept it in his pants.

Courts in cases involving children should be fair to the *child*. Everyone else's fairness comes second.

rosenhane wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I do think that the man should only have to pay for half of the procedures, not all of them. Courts are already unfair to men once the child is born, we can at least aim for equality before the child is born.

He should have thought about that before he got her pregnant. If he wasn't willing to pay the consequences he should have kept it in his pants.

On the assumption that you're serious, the woman could have kept her pants on too, which brings me to 50%...

Yonder wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I can testify from experience and with textual documentation (Kama Sutra), that a woman's legs do not need to be apart for sex to happen. To the contrary, it can be more fun. Also, it can be easier on the hips.

Well yeah, but there is an even chance Freiss doesn't know that.

I was going to point out that this reveals that not only dies Freiss thing pre-Mad Men standards still reign, but it also reveals he's a very unimaginative partner. Glad you guys had already done so.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Courts in cases involving children should be fair to the *child*. Everyone else's fairness comes second.

Treating each parent equally and evaluating them on their merits as a parent and not their gender is what's fairest to the child.

rosenhane wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I do think that the man should only have to pay for half of the procedures, not all of them. Courts are already unfair to men once the child is born, we can at least aim for equality before the child is born.

He should have thought about that before he got her pregnant. If he wasn't willing to pay the consequences he should have kept it in his pants.

HE got her pregnant? She wasn't involved? If so, there's a bigger issue.

Oh my!

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

Why not? Just making sure everything is fine before they prescribe Viagra or Cialis.

Or, maybe we just need to know how full of crap the Virginia Legislature really is.

He has to pay for food and medicine, she has to spend most of a year allowing her body to be used as an incubator for an alien paperweight. Sounds fair to me.

Edited to add: Yeah, I'm being a bit snarky here. But I'm not [em]just[/em] being snarky. Saying "oh, fiscal responsibility should be 50/50!" sounds reasonable, but there's a lot more stuff going on. A pregnant woman really does have an alien biology growing inside her own, and all of the possible medical complications that arise from that. And before any medical complications, there's the overall complications. Hormones out of whack. Different nutritional needs. Being more careful about physical stress. Eventually carrying around a big out-of-balance weight. It might be that due to being more careful or due to hormones making you feel sh*tty or whatever you can't effectively perform your job. Different clothing to avoid discomfort, etc. More hormonal crap after the pregnancy is over (in one way or another).

There's a lot going on here. Suggesting that it should be "50/50" doesn't really account for all of that.

That's a big part of why the availability of contraception, at the very least, is pretty significant for womens' rights. And why that significance extends to abortion, honestly.

Pregnancy has major impacts on a woman's life that no man will ever have to deal with, and no amount of extra money thrown into a pot can change that. It is a difference in kind, not just a difference in degree.

That's why it's important that a woman be given all the tools available to decide when or if she wishes to make that choice.

Next GOP debate: Should Pregnant women be allowed to wear shoes in the kitchen?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Oh my!

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

Why not? Just making sure everything is fine before they prescribe Viagra or Cialis.

Or, maybe we just need to know how full of crap the Virginia Legislature really is.

I dunno. Who's to say the patient's perceived erectile dysfunction is 100% a prostate issue and not the result of bladder/urinary tract problems? For best results, you might as well throw in a nice, routine cystoscopy through the penis.

For all the criticism I've read here on how badly the Democrats handle the GOP fanaticism, I must say I'm impressed at how well they're exposing the underlying motives with their rejected amendments. If they can advertise these to the independents, this could mean a big win.

dejanzie wrote:

For all the criticism I've read here on how badly the Democrats handle the GOP fanaticism, I must say I'm impressed at how well they're exposing the underlying motives with their rejected amendments. If they can advertise these to the independents, this could mean a big win.

I think the reason Democrats can't sell sex to sailors is because of an interesting role reversal that started with the Southern Strategy and seems to have completed itself fairly recently. Republicans used to be the party of adult supervision until Nixon decided to court klansmen and unrepentant insurrectionists who fundamentally disagreed with the idea of government.

Now Democratic legislators tend to be more professional when it comes to things like constituent services. This comes from the fact that they generally don't come in on the wave of anti-incumbency. Outrage over government is not a huge reason to vote for a Democrat. To vote Democrat, you have to, on some level, believe that government is capable of doing good and necessary things.

As a result, when Democrats actually do provide adult supervision to crap like the above, they generally tend to see this as the natural order and don't make a huge deal over it. It used to be the way "Rockafeller Republicans" used to do it.

gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Courts in cases involving children should be fair to the *child*. Everyone else's fairness comes second.

Treating each parent equally and evaluating them on their merits as a parent and not their gender is what's fairest to the child.

So do we just throw them in the Merit-O-Parent 3000 and wait for the readout?

Of course evaluating them on their merits would be fairest to the child. Have you actually thought about how to "evaluate" them though? We have trouble figuring out who's going to be a sh*tty parent vs. a competent parent, let alone trying to figure out who is the better parent out of two competent parents. I don't see the issue with ties going to the mother rather than flipping a coin, because let's face it: in most cases our evaluation of which parent has more 'merit' isn't going to be much better than random chance.

I'm also not sure how many times the courts are picking the mother because of her gender as opposed to her being the one that runs the household on a day-to-day basis. Minimizing the disruption to the child's life is a factor here, too, and it's one that's a lot easier to figure out than one parent's merit vs. the other's.

Democrat Virginia House of Delegates member David Englin quotes a female colleague (who he will not name) as saying that women had already made the decision to be “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”

So I guess the next Virginia bill will be redefining rape as "Vaginal penetration of a non-consenting virgin that does not protest loud enough."

CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't see the issue with ties going to the mother rather than flipping a coin, because let's face it: in most cases our evaluation of which parent has more 'merit' isn't going to be much better than random chance.

From people I know that have been through divorce court, the child care and alimony situation is not "ties go to the mother" levels of favoring women, but is much more lopsided.

Democrat Virginia House of Delegates member David Englin quotes a female colleague (who he will not name) as saying that women had already made the decision to be “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”

She's a sinner!

Yonder wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't see the issue with ties going to the mother rather than flipping a coin, because let's face it: in most cases our evaluation of which parent has more 'merit' isn't going to be much better than random chance.

From people I know that have been through divorce court, the child care and alimony situation is not "ties go to the mother" levels of favoring women, but is much more lopsided.

To whatever extent that is true things should be fixed. I'm a bit skeptical, especially about going from some bad cases to saying there's an institutional problem. Especially if the people you know are only on one side of that equation: it's hard for people to be objective about their experience in these kinds of situations.

CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Courts in cases involving children should be fair to the *child*. Everyone else's fairness comes second.

Treating each parent equally and evaluating them on their merits as a parent and not their gender is what's fairest to the child.

So do we just throw them in the Merit-O-Parent 3000 and wait for the readout?

Of course evaluating them on their merits would be fairest to the child. Have you actually thought about how to "evaluate" them though? We have trouble figuring out who's going to be a sh*tty parent vs. a competent parent, let alone trying to figure out who is the better parent out of two competent parents. I don't see the issue with ties going to the mother rather than flipping a coin, because let's face it: in most cases our evaluation of which parent has more 'merit' isn't going to be much better than random chance.

I'm also not sure how many times the courts are picking the mother because of her gender as opposed to her being the one that runs the household on a day-to-day basis. Minimizing the disruption to the child's life is a factor here, too, and it's one that's a lot easier to figure out than one parent's merit vs. the other's.

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. The amount of disruption to the child's life is part of the parent's merit. I'm not saying there's an easy answer, just saying that you're not adding any new info by saying "Everyone else's fairness comes second" because that's already the point and the goal.

I would like to add another layer of manipulation that I feel is in play here. Because everything won't be peachy keen once women are "allowed" to involve themselves in the process.

This is because the stage has already been set for the most competitive aspects of women to thrive. Many of the voices of women with more open attitudes towards sexuality will essentially denounce as prude those women that abstained or had fewer partners before marraige. And the opposite will happen where women with open attitudes will have another voice added to the choir demonizing them as sluts. No matter how small the percentage of voices, this will completely drown out moderation.

The circle will be complete when the men in control will step back and let the fire rage and use it as evidence that women can't contribute to civil discourse.

fangblackbone wrote:

I would like to add another layer of manipulation that I feel is in play here. Because everything won't be peachy keen once women are "allowed" to involve themselves in the process.

This is because the stage has already been set for the most competitive aspects of women to thrive. Many of the voices of women with more open attitudes towards sexuality will essentially denounce as prude those women that abstained or had fewer partners before marraige. And the opposite will happen where women with open attitudes will have another voice added to the choir demonizing them as sluts. No matter how small the percentage of voices, this will completely drown out moderation.

The circle will be complete when the men in control will step back and let the fire rage and use it as evidence that women can't contribute to civil discourse.

And hopefully the women will kick them in the nuts the moment they say that.

The state almost never acts in the interest of the child. Based on what I've learned from adopting, the states tend to put the interest of the "family" (read parents) over the interest of the child. Parents that screw up are given multiple chances to become an adequat parent. Many continue to fail. Each chance adds additional scarring and developmental delays to the child.

If they really did work with the child's best interest, they would give parent's one chance, and if they blew it, the child would be adopted out to parents that didn't f*ck it up.

Nevin73 wrote:

The state almost never acts in the interest of the child. Based on what I've learned from adopting, the states tend to put the interest of the "family" (read parents) over the interest of the child. Parents that screw up are given multiple chances to become an adequat parent. Many continue to fail. Each chance adds additional scarring and developmental delays to the child.

If they really did work with the child's best interest, they would give parent's one chance, and if they blew it, the child would be adopted out to parents that didn't f*ck it up.

I dont know how fair that is, the best parents can blow it more than once in a given day.

NathanialG wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

The state almost never acts in the interest of the child. Based on what I've learned from adopting, the states tend to put the interest of the "family" (read parents) over the interest of the child. Parents that screw up are given multiple chances to become an adequat parent. Many continue to fail. Each chance adds additional scarring and developmental delays to the child.

If they really did work with the child's best interest, they would give parent's one chance, and if they blew it, the child would be adopted out to parents that didn't f*ck it up.

I dont know how fair that is, the best parents can blow it more than once in a given day.

I'm talking about abuse and neglect...those things don't generally just "happen".

krev82 wrote:

Seems even marriage won't cut it for these people; Birth Control Debate: New Hampshire Lawmaker Urges Married Couples To Practice Abstinence

I'm going build the "Mayflower 2.0" to go find a land free from religion.

DSGamer wrote:
krev82 wrote:

Seems even marriage won't cut it for these people; Birth Control Debate: New Hampshire Lawmaker Urges Married Couples To Practice Abstinence

I'm going build the "Mayflower 2.0" to go find a land free from religion.

Sounds like someone should be voting for Newt and his moon base.

Yonder wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
krev82 wrote:

Seems even marriage won't cut it for these people; Birth Control Debate: New Hampshire Lawmaker Urges Married Couples To Practice Abstinence

I'm going build the "Mayflower 2.0" to go find a land free from religion.

Sounds like someone should be voting for Newt and his moon base.

Good point. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Yonder wrote:
rosenhane wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I do think that the man should only have to pay for half of the procedures, not all of them. Courts are already unfair to men once the child is born, we can at least aim for equality before the child is born.

He should have thought about that before he got her pregnant. If he wasn't willing to pay the consequences he should have kept it in his pants.

On the assumption that you're serious, the woman could have kept her pants on too, which brings me to 50%...

But he shouldn't get any say in the matter, it's her choice 100% after she gets pregnant on what happens with her body.