The Conservative War On Women

I'm somewhat surprised that none of the politicians are using this as a 'let's cut more from welfare/medicaid/etc so that our tax money isn't going to these babies' issue.

OG_slinger wrote:

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?

Yeah; those births...they don't care that poor women are giving birth; what they care about is that brown women are giving birth to Democrats.

duckideva wrote:

Yeah; those births...they don't care that poor women are giving birth; what they care about is that brown women are giving birth to Democrats.

It is amazing to witness the extreme levels of cognitive dissonance conservatives can tolerate. Perhaps that's why the base of the Republican Party just seems mad at everyone and everything.

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

And I continue to wonder why people hated Jimmy Carter so much.

Demosthenes wrote:

And I continue to wonder why people hated Jimmy Carter so much.

SWEATER. STAGFLATION. HE MADE AMERICA WEAK. NOT REAGAN.

Sorry, channeling my uncle. Carry on.

bombsfall wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

And I continue to wonder why people hated Jimmy Carter so much.

SWEATER. STAGFLATION. HE MADE AMERICA WEAK. NOT REAGAN.

Sorry, channeling my uncle. Carry on.

Solar panels on the roof of the White House? When he should have bombed the Ayrabs into submission?

Rabbit attack!

Carter was too ahead of his time.

clover wrote:

Carter was too ahead of his time.

Apparently! I always thought he was awesome and I really don't get the hate.

A politician admitting his religious beliefs were wrong in light of the societal damage they do for gender relations? Huge! Retired makes it a bit less so, and I'd hope he always believed in equal rights for gender, otherwise I'd have to give him a finger wag and say he's way behind the times when he should have realized that.

LouZiffer wrote:

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.

This. Holy f***, this.

My girlfriend regularly tells me things that happen in her daily life that just make me want to dickpunch every man in the world including myself. To give just one of many, many examples, a couple of weeks ago, she was followed down the street in broad daylight by a dude who was masturbating AT her, c*ck out, jerking it like it was going out of fashion.

That kind of stuff is just unfathomable to guys. We have no analog for it, no comparable experience, and no mental framework to place it within.

There is a lot of crazy here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...

“No one has ever had more than one partner and not paid”: A look at Pam Stenzel, the popular Christian speaker who has renewed controversy over abstinence-only education (Salon)

SIECUS’ ultimate conclusion about Stenzel was that her DVD “Sex Still Has a Price Tag,” which is sold to public schools for $30 a pop, “is based on fear and shame; designed to control young people’s sexual behavior by instilling in them feelings of dread, guilt, and embarrassment.” The report argues that “in both her tone and her words, Stenzel appears to have an intense dislike or at least distrust of the young people she is speaking to, and seems to see her goal as that of a drill sergeant or prison guard who is there to keep them in line and dole out punishment.” It adds, “Moreover, Stenzel relies on inaccurate statistics and passes off gross exaggerations and complete falsehoods as fact.” As SIECUS concluded, her curriculum represents “the worst kind of abstinence-only-until-marriage programming.”

Ugh. The things being said by this person go way way [em]way[/em] beyond anything I imagined "abstinence-only" to mean. This isn't just "we're not going to tell you about the things you need to know because we're afraid you'll be sexually active", this is "we're going to tell you actively untrue things designed to scare you out of having sex". I cannot believe that this crap is being done in public schools.

Hypatian wrote:

“No one has ever had more than one partner and not paid”: A look at Pam Stenzel, the popular Christian speaker who has renewed controversy over abstinence-only education (Salon)

SIECUS’ ultimate conclusion about Stenzel was that her DVD “Sex Still Has a Price Tag,” which is sold to public schools for $30 a pop, “is based on fear and shame; designed to control young people’s sexual behavior by instilling in them feelings of dread, guilt, and embarrassment.” The report argues that “in both her tone and her words, Stenzel appears to have an intense dislike or at least distrust of the young people she is speaking to, and seems to see her goal as that of a drill sergeant or prison guard who is there to keep them in line and dole out punishment.” It adds, “Moreover, Stenzel relies on inaccurate statistics and passes off gross exaggerations and complete falsehoods as fact.” As SIECUS concluded, her curriculum represents “the worst kind of abstinence-only-until-marriage programming.”

Ugh. The things being said by this person go way way [em]way[/em] beyond anything I imagined "abstinence-only" to mean. This isn't just "we're not going to tell you about the things you need to know because we're afraid you'll be sexually active", this is "we're going to tell you actively untrue things designed to scare you out of having sex". I cannot believe that this crap is being done in public schools.

If you get remarried after your spouse dies, get ready for Hepatitis K. Also, hell.

Is it just me, or does she look like the crazy Applebee's pastor?

I will forever be perplexed why there is such a horrible stigma around STDs. They are diseases and diseases need to be treated, not demonized.

How many people have allowed their bodies to be damage through disease rather than seek medical attention because they fear what the doctor might say?

People like Stenzel are disgraceful because they terrorize people with an ideology that makes people not only afraid of God, but also of their doctors.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I will forever be perplexed why there is such a horrible stigma around STDs. They are diseases and diseases need to be treated, not demonized.

How many people have allowed their bodies to be damage through disease rather than seek medical attention because they fear what the doctor might say?

People like Stenzel are disgraceful because they terrorize people with an ideology that makes people not only afraid of God, but also of their doctors.

And their own bodies.

Working in a grocery store call center, I can tell you, a lot of people just don't trust doctors and think that almost anyone else is more qualified to tell them about their bodies. A lady called me asking if some OTC pain medicine could be taken with her prescriptions, I told her to speak with her doctor as he would have the most information... and she scoffed saying, I would never talk to my doctor if I wanted to know something important about my health.

This lady isn't helping, but I'd say public perception of doctors over the last few years has been dropping, which I find entirely bizarre, as I wouldn't trust anyone but a doctor standing right in front of me to explain my health to me.

Farscry and I had a relevant conversion about this, but I can't remember where. Something about a relationship between one and one's doctor being sacred.

On topic: Stuff like this actually push me toward a privatized school system where I could simply shop around for a school not willing to put up with this kind of malarkey.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I will forever be perplexed why there is such a horrible stigma around STDs. They are diseases and diseases need to be treated, not demonized.

Given the populations I work with, I get pretty regular testing. But I have a genuine, small, but real risk and the fear to go with that. If I am shaking hands with a man with HIV, a woman with Hepatitis, or in the prison population where that risk gets very high, I do genuinely worry that if they have a hang nail, or a cut, and I shake hands like that, that I might be exposed to a pathogen. Doctors experience this fear, first res-ponders like police or fire.

I have had to condition my wife about this. I think I am safe for Hep ABC, I was immunized and I got the boosters. But that stigma really worries me. I also worry that because I treat shaking hands with a man who is HIV positive, akin to shaking hands with a client with a cough-I wash up afterwards, really look at their hands, might decline altogether. I do not want to look like I am sticking my nose up, but neither do I want to risk exposure to myself and then my wife.

Demosthenes wrote:

Working in a grocery store call center, I can tell you, a lot of people just don't trust doctors and think that almost anyone else is more qualified to tell them about their bodies. A lady called me asking if some OTC pain medicine could be taken with her prescriptions, I told her to speak with her doctor as he would have the most information... and she scoffed saying, I would never talk to my doctor if I wanted to know something important about my health.

It's a good thing that I don't have your job. I probably would have told her to take whatever she wants with her prescription meds and that she should probably wash it down with a bottle of wine because the alcohol helps activate the meds. Then I'd be in jail.

Seth wrote:

Farscry and I had a relevant conversion about this, but I can't remember where. Something about a relationship between one and one's doctor being sacred.

On topic: Stuff like this actually push me toward a privatized school system where I could simply shop around for a school not willing to put up with this kind of malarkey.

Private schools are almost always religious, which means you're not going to get actual sex education unless the school is in a pretty liberal area. The Catholic high school I went to had pretty expansive coverage of all things sex-education, but from talking with friends who grew up in different areas, the school I went to was the outlier. Realistically, public schools are your best bet at getting coverage of that stuff in an honest manner. Unless you're in an extremely conservative area, in which case, good luck.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Working in a grocery store call center, I can tell you, a lot of people just don't trust doctors and think that almost anyone else is more qualified to tell them about their bodies. A lady called me asking if some OTC pain medicine could be taken with her prescriptions, I told her to speak with her doctor as he would have the most information... and she scoffed saying, I would never talk to my doctor if I wanted to know something important about my health.

It's a good thing that I don't have your job. I probably would have told her to take whatever she wants with her prescription meds and that she should probably wash it down with a bottle of wine because the alcohol helps activate the meds. Then I'd be in jail.

What's funny is I'm trying to get promoted to be a specialist above the base-line of reps you reach when you first call here, where most of my interactions with customers will then be the customers that our regular reps couldn't help/handle.

Call the police three times for domestic abuse and get evicted.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-righ...

NathanialG wrote:

Call the police three times for domestic abuse and get evicted.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-righ...

Wow.

The really sad part is that I can see the twisted logic there. A thrice attacked domestic violence victim is presumably stuck in a dangerous situation out of which she cannot escape without the help of others.

This ordinance technically does that. It removes the woman from a dangerous situation. Forcibly, if necessary. Sometimes cities are really, really good at addressing the symptom while ignoring the cause.

NathanialG wrote:

Call the police three times for domestic abuse and get evicted.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-righ...

God, that's insane.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

Call the police three times for domestic abuse and get evicted.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-righ...

God, that's insane.

More insane than that creepy thing you posted in the pictures thread.

Barely.

In a secular country is it really too much to ask that public health policy be based on facts about public health instead of religions panic?

Oh right. Stupid real world.