The Conservative War On Women

Black Tie would restore esteem and prestige of the Grammys, sullied now by bare sides and undercurvatures. Both Milli and Vanilli must be spinning in their graves.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Black Tie would restore esteem and prestige of the Grammys, sullied now by bare sides and undercurvatures. Both Milli and Vanilli must be spinning in their graves.
if it were actually them in their graves.

So, once again, a cleric from a minority, ultra-conservative sect declares that women cannot don specific garb and pray at a given holy site. The cops act as the cleric's force of authority and drag away women who defy his decree.

Oh, snap! It's in Israel.

The women continued praying for a solid hour, glad to have gotten so far. The group believes the police held back because six former Israeli paratroopers showed up in support.

...But once the crowd of supporters and media dispersed, police stepped in and grabbed 10 women, including Susan Silverman, the sister of American comedian Sarah Silverman, and Lior Nevo, a rabbinical student.

Sarah Silverman's sister? Now it becomes relevant to Murricans. As The Divine Sarah herself might say, "Orthodox? More like Whorethodox!"

http://laist.com/2013/03/02/californ...

Celeste Greig wrote:
Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized. I don't know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don't know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act.

Learning from other peoples' mistakes is not something that Celeste Greig particularly cares for.

Yonder wrote:
Learning from other peoples' mistakes is not something that Celeste Greig particularly cares for.

The mind has a way of shutting that whole thing down.

I wonder if the idea is that if enough prominent people say something, it will become a socially acceptable idea regardless of veracity.

I'm not sure how possible that is in the age of the internet though.

Demyx wrote:
I'm not sure how possible that is in the age of the internet though.

Google bombs and laziness?

Demyx wrote:
I wonder if the idea is that if enough prominent people say something, it will become a socially acceptable idea regardless of veracity.

I'm not sure how possible that is in the age of the internet though.

Oh it's absolutely still possible, and I think that the internet makes it more likely. People who think and want to think that way will be able to find echo chambers to make that possible.

Internet echo chamber is a topic I have opinions about but I think they're probably off topic for this thread. I'll put a post over in the P&C questions thread for anyone who is interested.

Demyx wrote:
I wonder if the idea is that if enough prominent people say something, it will become a socially acceptable idea regardless of veracity.

I'm not sure how possible that is in the age of the internet though.

The polls about Obama's religion and citizenship point to the idea that nonsense thrives easily. More people polled in 2012 believed he is Muslim and that he was not born in the US, than in 2008.

Yonder wrote:
Demyx wrote:
I wonder if the idea is that if enough prominent people say something, it will become a socially acceptable idea regardless of veracity.

I'm not sure how possible that is in the age of the internet though.

Oh it's absolutely still possible, and I think that the internet makes it more likely. People who think and want to think that way will be able to find echo chambers to make that possible.


People simply love Confirmation Bias

Well, at least it's nice to see the Christian right being honest about what motivates them.

Family Research Council senior fellow Pat Fagan wrote:

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

They should make To Punish, Corral and Shame their motto.

wut

Heh; I read his name as Fat Pagan first. He might be the devil in disguise!

You know he was teased for having that last name as a kid, so of course he joined an anti-gay hate group as an adult.

IMAGE(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2463/corral.jpg)

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
Well, at least it's nice to see the Christian right being honest about what motivates them.

Family Research Council senior fellow Pat Fagan wrote:

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

They should make To Punish, Corral and Shame their motto.

It should go in a circle surrounding thei logo. LikeProtect and Serve or some govt't agency logo.

So um, the US should be "functioning" like Saudi Arabia? Not "functioning" like France or Spain or Italy or Canada or the UK or Belgium or Germany or Japan? To be fair the Middle East and Europe and Asia and Canada have lower incidence of teen pregnancy and STIs.

Not sure if this the right place, but Jimmy Carter cuts ties with his church because of their views on women.

http://www.womenspress-slo.org/?p=11440

mudbunny wrote:
Not sure if this the right place, but Jimmy Carter cuts ties with his church because of their views on women.

http://www.womenspress-slo.org/?p=11440

Wow, that was a good read.

mudbunny wrote:
Not sure if this the right place, but Jimmy Carter cuts ties with his church because of their views on women.

http://www.womenspress-slo.org/?p=11440

To me, it's a relatively timely article. I was talking with a friend online yesterday, and we started talking about this surge of writing and reporting on sexism and internet/tech/gaming culture. One of the things he mentioned that kind of stuck with me was, "It's just so strange people are like this online when things are relatively fine for women outside of the Internet." It was a venomless statement (he wasn't being sarcastic or ironic), and I thought that perhaps that's a problem many people overlook: it's not like things are really that much better outside of these circles, they're just quieter. Which says several things, I guess.

Bloo Driver wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Not sure if this the right place, but Jimmy Carter cuts ties with his church because of their views on women.

http://www.womenspress-slo.org/?p=11440

To me, it's a relatively timely article. I was talking with a friend online yesterday, and we started talking about this surge of writing and reporting on sexism and internet/tech/gaming culture. One of the things he mentioned that kind of stuck with me was, "It's just so strange people are like this online when things are relatively fine for women outside of the Internet." It was a venomless statement (he wasn't being sarcastic or ironic), and I thought that perhaps that's a problem many people overlook: it's not like things are really that much better outside of these circles, they're just quieter. Which says several things, I guess.

On Saturday I was chatting with my wife about these threads on GWJ and sexism in general. I asked how often she was impacted by it when she's out and about and she responded, "Oh, constantly." She then proceeded to describe some recent incidents which were sobering (and frankly make me upset). In a general sense I think that all women have to deal with this garbage in their daily lives. Out of a mixed sense of wanting to shrug this stuff off and spare their loved ones some anger, the primary tendency is to drop it and not bring it home. This is understandable. I mean, what am I going to do when I'm not there to call it out? However, it also means that I and other males may carry a viewpoint which does not match up well with reality. We're ignorant.

Bloo Driver wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Not sure if this the right place, but Jimmy Carter cuts ties with his church because of their views on women.

http://www.womenspress-slo.org/?p=11440

To me, it's a relatively timely article. I was talking with a friend online yesterday, and we started talking about this surge of writing and reporting on sexism and internet/tech/gaming culture. One of the things he mentioned that kind of stuck with me was, "It's just so strange people are like this online when things are relatively fine for women outside of the Internet." It was a venomless statement (he wasn't being sarcastic or ironic), and I thought that perhaps that's a problem many people overlook: it's not like things are really that much better outside of these circles, they're just quieter. Which says several things, I guess.

Yeah, considering most of us keep quiet out of fear of backlash in real life, things probably do seem relatively fine.

I asked my wife to bring her stories home sometimes. Even if they might make me upset or they're not even worth the time to talk about in and of themselves, I need the reminder that I live in a different world. Even when we're out somewhere together, it's still a different world because I'm there.

I am not sure if this got put in here.

But the North Dakota ban on abortions after 6 weeks and Arkansas after 12.

http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/3...

It is blatant that this is to get into the federal court system. Also, one area where I really wish federal courts could issue financial sanctions to states.

Those states effectively issue financial sanctions against themselves.

Remember last year when Texas decided it would rather lose almost all of its Women's Health Program than have tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood who provided some of those family planning services?

They cut some $70-odd million from that budget and, as a direct result, the state now looking at nearly 24,000 unplanned pregnancies among low income women and caring for those unexpected newborns will cost taxpayers about $273 million. About $110 million of that will come from Texas' general operating budget.

So Texas basically gave itself a $200 million financial sanction because its legislators couldn't stand Planned Parenthood. Actually, Texas gave itself a much larger financial sanction because that $273 million only covers 2014-15. I imagine those 25,000 low income children and their mothers will be needing much more support from the state over the course of their lifetimes. But, hey. Those lawmakers really stuck it to Planned Parenthood, didn't they?

That's definitely believable. I wonder what *their* explanation is for this? What's the conservative fantasy world story that accounts for this? A huge increase in anchor babies, maybe?

BTW, "sanction" is not a synonym for "enema", although for some reason you use it as if it is.

Edit - Turns out there *is* no fantasy explanation; the lawmakers were aware of the costs and the increase in babies, and voted for the cuts anyway. You can lead stupid to water, but you can't make it drink...

The explanation is quite simple: many of them are also against using funds to support low income children and mothers. If you don't spend that money, then the whole thing is theoretically a net "savings".

Never mind that that would come with huge societal costs of its own.