asterroc | Women are studpid

women's rights, not feminazi

*eyebrow* Define? Seems like you're buying into anti-feminist framing, to me. "Feminazi" is a Limbaugh-ism.

http://zandperl.livejournal.com/511666.html

You know, if I never see the term 'feminazi' in my life again, it will be too soon.

But yes,

naamah_darling is fantastic in her rants.

I'm not saying I think feminazis exist, at least not in large quantities. I'm saying she does a good job of showing that frothing-mouthed feminists want equality, not to shackle men the way that women have been shackled.

And if it helps, I ranted about that term and "reverse racism" just for you and

kadath.

http://zandperl.livejournal.com/511666.html

Thanks so much for sharing. I really need to catch up on my current events. I just can't believe the shit that Obama is saying! I think it's time for a revolution.

I am not happy with Obama - he doesn't go far enough for me, and I'd much rather write in Kucinich or someone else even more radical. However, I am concerned that if I don't vote for Obama, that enough people might defect from the Democratic party to let McCain take the win. On the other hand, perhaps that's a risk I should be willing to take in order to get what I really want - long term change from the stagnant 2-party system.

Our (pretty damn bad) voting system needs to change in order for us to have a viable more-than-two party system, it seems to me.... I don't think I've heard of another viable suggestion for making our party system change.

I saw very little that was rational in there. I saw a lot of expletives and anger masking condescension, though. "The Aegis of Conscience" is something that should be denigrated? When it comes to issues like this, conscience is ALL that we have. Conscience isn't easy and conscience isn't some magical universal truth we all share.

The usual disclaimers apply here, as whenever I talk about this issue. I support abortion rights. I just hate it when pro-choice people smear anti-religious bigotry around while acting as if they were the only ones allowed to call the other side bigots. The pro-life side is not filled with people who begrudge you your existence, though as always there are some assholes in the world. The pro-life side is filled with people who struggle with the complicated moral issues involved and have come down on the opposite side from you. That's all that's going on.

"That's all." Are you kidding?

This isn't just some philosophical debate taking place in a classroom. This is harming real people.

Yes. This is not a philosophical debate. This is a moral issue. Moral issues are what happen when philosophical debates spill out of the classroom. It is real. That makes it ten times as complicated, and makes it ten times as urgent that we show real respect to the other side. The people on the other side have good reason to think that abortion is murder. If you knew that someone was going around killing their children, you'd do everything you could to stop them, right? Because this is the real world and real people are being harmed.

Now, my religion tells me (I am an Orthodox Jew) that the life of the mother should be protected first, especially in the first trimester when the status of the fetus is particular unclear. Their religion says something different, and we should try to show a little consideration for their approach, while working as hard we can to defend our own position.

To my mind, showing a little consideration for their approach means not requiring them to use contraception/abortion if they do not want to. And if they have a problem providing it, they should stay out of working in medical fields where they might be asked to.

I would find it a lot easier to respect their boneheaded anti-science notions if they weren't trying to turn -their- religious views into the law of the land. If they want to believe that evolution is a total lie, they can tell -their- children that, but I don't have a lot of patience for them demanding that evolution be removed from the public schools, or having their creation myth taught as though it were just as true as evolution.

I do not think that they will be satisfied if the "respect" we show them is to say, "There there, you have a right to your opinion, I understand why you feel the way you do" and avoid swearing because they are threatening our lives. They are just not going to be satisfied until they get a total ban on contraception and abortion. Then maybe they'll feel respected.

Devil's Advocate:
They see it as that we are imposing a immoral society on them and their children. They shouldn't have to be exposed to child murderers, they shouldn't have to see condom ads on the subway, their children shouldn't be exposed to condoms at school, their teens shouldn't be pressured into abortions, and their babies shouldn't be murdered if their pregnant women go to a hospital in distress.

It's reminiscent to me of how some people feel we should let the polygamists or Islamic fundamentalists live their lives as they want. To some extent I feel we shouldn't interfere IFF that group is entirely isolated from the rest of us. If that group is a part of us though, as the evangelical fundamentalists are, then we MUST fight it out.

I do understand that's how they see it. And part of me does think that if they want to go off and live in their own enclave where they can avoid all that stuff, fine, they're welcome to it. Except that those situations seem to keep leading to rather awful situations for the children born into them (or is it only the FLDS that does that? In the US, I mean).

And you're not going to be satisfied until contraception and abortion is completely protected for anyone who wants it. Are you happy now that the line is drawn? Stop cursing them off. They're not bad people just because they disagree with you. Actually, wait. They disagree with you on a moral issue. So I guess they are bad people. If your morality wins out, that is.

We struggle as a country filled with people with different moral values to find some subset of our values that we can all agree upon. Sometimes the best we can do is find a subset of our values that the majority agrees upon. Things would be simpler if we all agreed, but that's not the America we live in. But showing a little courtesy to people you disagree with is really not that hard a thing to ask for.

I agree that courtesy is a good thing, but I don't agree with you that it's "not that hard a thing to ask for" - if you were faced with a neo-Nazi wanting to kill you, or a Crusader wanting to convert you at swordpoint, I'm sure you'd have difficulty remaining polite.

And in some arguments, anger and vituperation can be tools to be used to help advance your cause at strategic times.

I've had completely civil arguments with missionaries of every stripe. I seem to attract them with my yarmulke. Jews for Jesus, Islamic missionaries, J Witnesses, etc... People who think that because of decisions I made, I will be going to hell, yet I managed to respect them enough to not curse them off and listen to any arguments they had. The way to combat them is to be more knowledgeable than them, not to yell at them.

But this is crucial: It's certainly true you can sometimes score debating points with anger and vituperation. Are those debating points worth winning? Or have you just intimidated someone into agreeing with you instead of persuaded them?

When the debating point involves my life and my body, yes, any means other than physical violence are acceptable. I exclude physical violence b/c including it would be doing the same to others as I am unhappy they are doing to me. Others believe that when it involves one's soul any means *including* physical violence are acceptable, perhaps because mere physical violence does not compare to the loss of a soul.

Anger can win an argument through means other than intimidation - showing opponents you are passionate about a topic can be convincing in and of itself, or others can go along just to shut you up (also not ideal, but again when it comes to my life and body I'll accept that).

Well, fine- but remember that what started this thread was me complaining that what you tagged a 'rational' rant was anger and obscenity-filled, hardly rational. If you're willing to win arguments through non-rational means, okay. Don't go around calling it a triumph of rationality.

So here's something that doesn't seem to have been considered yet (with a large amount of TMI): I have tried a multitude of pills, shots, therapy, and solutions to keep dead tissue in my ovaries from building up and bursting rather then being simply flushed out like it should be, and the only thing that works to prevent excruciating pain, nausea, and a high possibility of infection that can be solved only by a radical hysterectomy and intravenous antibiotics is the simple birth control pill. (Holy run-on sentence batman!) So I can avoid that by taking "the pill" now while still living with my parents, but if I want some independence that right now can be achieved only through SSDI and medicare I could be legally denied treatment despite not being able to get pregnant anyway simply because it is intended as a contraceptive? Am I reading that correctly?

Yep. And you can also be denied the Pill or Depo-Provera shots if you're on Accutane since it causes such horrible birth defects that anyone on it is required to use two forms of birth control.

FWIW this HHS thing (if legit, current sources are all talking about a "leaked" document and not anything that HHS is actually coming out and saying) technically is not a law or anything, it's just suggested guidelines for when pharmacists and doctors are "allowed" to deny you medication based upon their "conscience." So it's not technically related to medicare. But what's worse, is it's tangentially related to ALL pharmacies, so if adopted it could affect you NOW, not just if you were on medicare.

Ooof, that so makes my head hurt. I hope this never comes to Canada.

Women are studpid

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject