Printable View
There is apprently a "War Om Women" Campaign goingon withthe Republican Party towards Women is Country.
My question is Is there REALY a "War On Women" and if so you you think LOng Term it wil have an effect om the November election, if there realy is this War going on, coul it cost The Republicans the White House in November?
The "War on Women" is actually a primary goal of the far-right fundagelical wing of the Republican Party. The problem is that the candidates have been bending over backwards to appeal to the far right, and have been embracing their malignant, retrogressive policies towards women, gays and people of color. Now, with Romney the apparent candidate, you'll see him pulling away from such rhetoric, at least publicly, in order to try to win back the women who have been fleeing the Party for months. After all, why would you want to embrace a group that wants to take over control of your body, your rights, and your future, all in the name of "smaller" government?
Hopefully there are still intelligent women in the GOP who can see what these idiots are trying to do and will vote them ALL out of office. Sadly, though, I think there are far too many who will vote the party line, just because it IS the party line. That way they don't have to actually think about what they're voting for, or how it is themselves, and their daughters, who will have to pay the price.
Thorne,
I agree with you, BUt asidefrom the "War On Women" the Fanitical Right of the Republican Party wil also cause the Republicans to loose alot if not Most of the Support of the Gay Comminuty, and other Minorities, what Romey needs to realize is that the Women of this Country, the Gay Community, the Latino Communty and other Minorities have a HUGE Voting block come November, and recently I rwad that Nation wide Obama has about 92& of the Layino vote for November, the Far Right of the Republicans need to relaize tht the more the try to Deprive Women of Equal Rights, the more Condosending they conitnue to be towards Gays, and their apprent "Lack of Interest" in the Latino Population can and wil cost them dearly in November, alot of these groups are not heardfrom aily on a public basis but they have some morei mportant then a lack of Public Voice, the have the POWER of the Vote
I beleive that Romey is very affraid to distance himself from the likes of the TeaPary, The Evengelical's etc and by not distancing himselffrom them he wil further alienate their support for him
If he won't denouce what Rush Limbough hassaid, he wil hardly critisize the Fanitical Right Wing of the Party who wil Alienate EVERYNONE in this Country except The Relgious Right, if the Republican Party continues it's "WAr On Women," thier refusal to acknowledge the Gsy Community, and Gay Rights, the Latino Communit,y this election could end up asa bigger landslide for Obmam the when Jimmy Carter was soundly defeated for a 2nd termby Regan, the Republicn Party has EVERYTHING to loose at this point but Romney,for what ever thereason wil not distance himself from remarks made etc
Ifthe Republicans do loosei n November, they can thank the lack of Womens's Vote, The Gay Vote and the Latino vote for their lack of supporting Romneny, they wii have nobody to blame but themselves,
I am not necessarily ENDORSING Obama herem simply pointing out what the Repulbicans have to loosei n November and it ciuld end up VERY costly in not only nottaking overthe White House BUT al re loosing control of the House Again and the Democrats taking a stronger hold in the Senate then they have already. I think the American people are mart enoughnow to know EXACTLY wha tthe Tea Party stand for and I asm not so sure the Majority of American's agree withtheir views in General
And I truely believe that the Republicans right now are more concenred about Bashing Obmam they seeingwho they are Alienating andbythe time they see who and why it wil be too late forthem to change course
Romey needs to stan up for what he believesi n Publcly and not gice in to the Far Right of the Party which is what he was donig
He never even distanced himself fromthe commentthat Ted NUget made at the NRA Covnention, he is too afriad to stand up to the Fringe Geoups of his party, who may very call cost him and the Party not only the White House but possibly theHouse and Senate as well
Coughs...this so called "war on women" is simple rhetoric used by the left to try and paint their opponents as doing something detestable isn't it?
What specifically is this so called war about?
Abortion right?
Not the least contested of issues?
Sounds like the democrat leadership is simply attempting to re-brand the terminology and make anything pro-life into some imaginary war being waged upon the fairer sex imho.
Another case of classic sophism at work in politics.
The Republicans as always are stil trying to make Women appear to be 2nd class Citizens, NOBODY eact the Hubby, Doctor or the Woeman herself shoud have ANY say about what they as women do withtheir Reproductive Systems, the Republicans do not believei n Equal Pay for Equal Work, the Republicans as they alwayshave are tryingto control the liveso f Womens, they wantto dictate to Womens what they can have can't have etc, yes they do not hestiate to Help out the Oil Industry which in and of itslef is a whole different thread and I wil not highjack it for that
The Democrats have been trying to end subsadies for Oil Companie,s End Tax breaks for them but the Repulicans won't letthem
The Republicans would rather see gas prices sky rocket then to help women, the middle class, tthe minorities
I hope if Roney windsi n November that he does follow throughon what ever Repulbican Candiae had said during the Dbates "If I win Gas wil go down to $2.49 a Gallon" it will never happen, Women wi never have equal rights with a membero f the GOP in the White House, histroy has shown that, they are more concenreda bout apsinig the ringe Right Wingers that tryin to help the comon man, they could care less abou NYONE who earns thess then $250,000.00 butthen again they have always been like that
Abortion has been an issue in all election for the last 15 years that is no new issue
And asidefrom not supporting Women's Right, they the Repubicans do not Support, Gay Rights, the Latino community at all, which has HUGE VOTING POWER in November but the certain support the NRA, The Oil Companies, The Banks etc this is about more then Womens rights it is about, Gays, Minorities, Big Businees, Banks etc andsupportingo nly thosewho earn more then $250,000 a year
I am diabled, I wil not go into specifics but have been for the last 12 years, I recenty went to an Community Town Hall Meetin,g featuring a Tea Party Member runnig for Reelction, I asked them what they plan to do about Medicare, to help those who are diaabled, the asked me if I worked, I said no ,I leftwork 12 years ago do to my disability, they asked me if I paid Taxes, I told then when I worked Yes just like everyone els,er they askedifi piad then now, I said no I recieive SSDI then then tol me ifi do not pay Pay Taxes and have a job I can't Donate to Political Campaighsn bei t theirs or other, I said I am not financialy able to at this time do to the state of the Economy, their reply was "You do not currently work, do you not curreny donate to me or any Politician, there for since you have no money to donate your issues are not a xoncenr for me" I did respecftfulltel lthem that no I can't contribue to any Campaign but I can do someting FAR more important I CAN STILL VOTE, their reply... Next question please, they would not answer my question since I am not wealthy
i thought the same thing . . . seems more like a cat fight of career grrrl power vs traditional stay at home. if it wasnt an election year, nobody would give a crapQuote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
No, it isn't. It's a term used by women who understand what the radical theocrats on the right are trying to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
It's about reducing the rights of women, making them less than men, making them little more than carriers for men's babies, regardless of their own feelings. It's about getting women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen. It's about removing the rights that women have fought so hard to claim.Quote:
What specifically is this so called war about?
Absolutely WRONG! Not a right to have an abortion, but a right to CHOOSE whether or not to carry a parasitical clump of cells to term. A right to CHOOSE whether or not to get pregnant at all!Quote:
Abortion right?
I try to avoid the term, "pro-life" since the large majority of vocal anti-abortion/anti-contraception people seem to be anything but! They tend to favor the death penalty, they tend to disapprove of any kind of government support of women and children, they tend to frown upon medical research and treatments whose primary beneficiaries are women. They are not "pro-life", the are simply "pro-birth".Quote:
Sounds like the democrat leadership is simply attempting to re-brand the terminology and make anything pro-life into some imaginary war being waged upon the fairer sex imho.
And for the record, I disapprove of most forms of abortion, especially when used as a form of post coital birth control. However, being a man and not a woman, I don't believe that I have any right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term if she feels incapable of providing for the child, or in the case of rape or incest, or when there are medical problems which cannot be repaired by doctors. In short, I approve of allowing the person most affected by it the right to choose for herself!
[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]
It's about reducing the rights of women, making them less than men, making them little more than carriers for men's babies, regardless of their own feelings. It's about getting women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen. It's about removing the rights that women have fought so hard to claim.[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]
How?
[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]
Absolutely WRONG! Not a right to have an abortion, but a right to CHOOSE whether or not to carry a parasitical clump of cells to term. A right to CHOOSE whether or not to get pregnant at all![QUOTE=Thorne;967467]
Once again, it strikes me as enormously unfair that a woman gets a way out of an unwanted pregnancy, but a man does not.
and what's the last part about? Nobody is tellling women they have to have babies
Once again, does a woman have a right to force me to be a father? If I get a girl pregnant, and she does not want the child but I do, then tough luck on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
If she wants the kid and I don't, I'm on the hook for 18 years of child support.
And don't say "that's what you get for getting a girl pregnant because last time I checked it is a group effort.
and someone is going to have to explain to me how to use the quote function cause damn I cant figure it out
By forcing women to have children if they want to have sex. Or even if they don't want to have sex ("You MUST submit to your husband!") Basically going back to the "barefoot and pregnant" stage of ancient history (like the 1950's for FSM's sake!) By not allowing women to choose whether of not to have children, they are in essence telling women that they are incapable of making proper decisions and should leave those kinds of things to "da menfolk".Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
I have never yet seen a man who was pregnant, unwanted or not! But it isn't the man who has to undergo the enormous biological changes that come with pregnancy. He doesn't have to take the risks to life and health that come with even an easy pregnancy. He isn't the one who will have to lose time from his job, or time with his drinking buddies, because of doctor's appointments and recovery times. Until men are able to carry a fetus for nine months and undergo all of the hazards of doing so, they don't get the choice. Of course, in an ideal world, they should have some say in the matter, but when it comes right down to it, the woman should be the one to make the choice.Quote:
Once again, it strikes me as enormously unfair that a woman gets a way out of an unwanted pregnancy, but a man does not.
They are trying to prevent women, and men, from using ANY form of contraception. In short, they are telling women that if they have sex, they MUST risk pregnancy. And they are trying to pass laws which will prevent abortions of ANY kind, even after rape or when the life of the mother is threatened. In other words, they are trying to FORCE women to have babies. Pro-birth, not pro-life. They place the life of the fetus (NOT child) ahead of the life of the mother.Quote:
and what's the last part about? Nobody is tellling women they have to have babies
Pretty much, yeah. Once again, SHE is the one taking the risks, SHE is the one who has to carry the fetus to term, SHE is the one who does all of the work! That's why a good sex-ed class teaches about the risks and responsibilities of having sexual relations and not the fun parts.Quote:
If I get a girl pregnant, and she does not want the child but I do, then tough luck on me.
Yep. That's about the size of it. If you don't want children, get a vasectomy. Or use a condom. Of course, if the right has their way, neither of those will be an option, either.Quote:
If she wants the kid and I don't, I'm on the hook for 18 years of child support.
Not always! But I'll assume that you're not a rapist. So yes, in your case it will probably be a group effort. And the potential price for that group activity is becoming a parent. Whether you like it or not. Allowing the use of contraceptives, for men AND women, including the morning after pill, reduces that risk astronomically. If the theocons have their way, you will have even less choice than now. If you have sex, you WILL become a father, sooner rather than later.Quote:
And don't say "that's what you get for getting a girl pregnant because last time I checked it is a group effort.
Im trying this quote thing one last time, cause damn, it's getting embarassing
[/QUOTE]By forcing women to have children if they want to have sex. Or even if they don't want to have sex ("You MUST submit to your husband!") Basically going back to the "barefoot and pregnant" stage of ancient history (like the 1950's for FSM's sake!) By not allowing women to choose whether of not to have children, they are in essence telling women that they are incapable of making proper decisions and should leave those kinds of things to "da menfolk".[/QUOTE]
How exactly are they doing this? Nobody is saying women can't work or own property or vote.
[/QUOTE]I have never yet seen a man who was pregnant, unwanted or not! But it isn't the man who has to undergo the enormous biological changes that come with pregnancy. He doesn't have to take the risks to life and health that come with even an easy pregnancy. He isn't the one who will have to lose time from his job, or time with his drinking buddies, because of doctor's appointments and recovery times. Until men are able to carry a fetus for nine months and undergo all of the hazards of doing so, they don't get the choice. Of course, in an ideal world, they should have some say in the matter, but when it comes right down to it, the woman should be the one to make the choice.[/QUOTE]
Thomas Beattie (Beatie?)
[/QUOTE]They are trying to prevent women, and men, from using ANY form of contraception. In short, they are telling women that if they have sex, they MUST risk pregnancy. And they are trying to pass laws which will prevent abortions of ANY kind, even after rape or when the life of the mother is threatened. In other words, they are trying to FORCE women to have babies. Pro-birth, not pro-life. They place the life of the fetus (NOT child) ahead of the life of the mother.[/QUOTE]
I am quite sure you're referring to the sandra fluke/birth control fiasco. nobody is trying to ban birth control; the question is whether or not the gov't should make insurance companies pick up the tab. theres a big difference
[/QUOTE]Pretty much, yeah. Once again, SHE is the one taking the risks, SHE is the one who has to carry the fetus to term, SHE is the one who does all of the work! That's why a good sex-ed class teaches about the risks and responsibilities of having sexual relations and not the fun parts.
Yep. That's about the size of it. If you don't want children, get a vasectomy. Or use a condom. Of course, if the right has their way, neither of those will be an option, either.[/QUOTE]
the maternal mortality rate is .024 percent. And once again, if she didn't want kids, she should be on the pill. you can't dumpall the blame on the man which is what everyone does all the time. Give both sexes a way of opting out: if a man wants the kid and she doesn't, then the man foots all the bills during a 9 month gestation and takes sole custody; if the man doesn't want it and the girl does, then he gives up all financial responsibilities. that is only fair.
and if people think the gov't should pay for womens BC, maybe it should pay for my vasectomy.
okay, and for real, how the hell do you use the quotes? I put the [/QUOTE] thing in there, and nothing happens.I would greatly apppreciate a tutorial
Use just QUOTE (in brackets) to open the quote, and /QUOTE (with brackets) to close the quote. Or highlight the text you want to quote and click on the 'Wrap QUOTE tags around selected text' button at the right end of the formatting bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
No, not yet. The laws they are trying to change, though, could result in women being kept out of the work force by being continuously pregnant. And if you don't thing they would eventually go after their right to vote you're being naive. These are people who secretly admire the Muslim's Sharia Law. They just think those people are talking to the wrong god.Quote:
How exactly are they doing this? Nobody is saying women can't work or own property or vote.
A transgender man. Born female. And he CHOSE to have children.Quote:
Thomas Beattie (Beatie?)
Nope, not referring to that at all. That's clearly a case of people like Rush Limbaugh either not knowing what they're talking about or deliberately lying about it.Quote:
I am quite sure you're referring to the sandra fluke/birth control fiasco. nobody is trying to ban birth control; the question is whether or not the gov't should make insurance companies pick up the tab. theres a big difference
No, I'm talking about laws restricting access to contraceptives. I'm talking about groups like the Catholic Church which lies about condoms preventing the spread of AIDS. I'm talking about prominent politicians who think that "contraception is 'a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.'"
And the UN says that there could be as many as 817,000 such deaths each year! That's a lot of dead mothers.Quote:
the maternal mortality rate is .024 percent.
Which she might not be able to afford, since her insurance company isn't required to pay for it. And if the theocons have their way she won't even be able to GET birth control pills.Quote:
And once again, if she didn't want kids, she should be on the pill.
Except you still have the woman bearing the physical, medical burden of being pregnant. Would you be willing to pay her for lost wages while she is confined to her bed for problems with the pregnancy? What about future problems resulting from complications with the pregnancy? Should the father be held responsible for those if he forces her to have the baby? As for the other option, true he shouldn't be solely responsible for the medical bills, but he is responsible for that child. After all, he did play role. And sometimes you have to pay the piper. If you didn't want kids, you shouldn't have slept with her!Quote:
you can't dumpall the blame on the man which is what everyone does all the time. Give both sexes a way of opting out: if a man wants the kid and she doesn't, then the man foots all the bills during a 9 month gestation and takes sole custody; if the man doesn't want it and the girl does, then he gives up all financial responsibilities. that is only fair.
I agree. I'd rather the government pay the few dollars needed for those than pay welfare for the huge number of children and mothers in poverty. It would be a bargain! A couple hundred one time for a vasectomy? Or a couple hundred a month for each little bastard you spawn? No contest!Quote:
and if people think the gov't should pay for womens BC, maybe it should pay for my vasectomy.
I think you can say there is, seeing the unusual boom of initiatives conerning laws against women. Whether it will cost them the election - no idea, but one can hope!Quote:
Originally Posted by StrictMasterD
Actually, it seems that the war is considered 'a war on religion' by the religious right, because they cannot be allowed to decide what other people - mainly women, but also others - should be doing. If I had the energy, I would post a shit load of links to shit I have been reading for months about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
It has to do with abort, yes, but also with prevention of pregnancy, health, and the right to a sex-life and a job.
Yes. We atheists, along with secular humanists and democrats, are persecuting the religious right by not allowing them to bully and persecute women, gays, Muslims and anyone else that is not them.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
I approve of allowing the person most affected by it the right to choose for herself! < Quote: Thorn.
saying it that way in and of itself removes it from being ones (choice )
I by far do not say much but I felt a need to, no disrespect intended.
Not sure I understand. You're saying that allowing someone the right to choose is taking away their choice? How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~CreamySub~
I still don't understand where this "religious right wants to oppress women" comes from. Of course you can find outliers who are insane on any spectrum, but I strongly disagree with the blanket statements.
I mean, nobody is going to say that this is a typical Obamaesque liberal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bavou_SEj1E
its also a funny video either way, and maybe proff that women shouldnt be making their own decisions
I am not sure I could ever have an abortion, but that does not mean that I get to decide what others should do. Other people, other circumstances, other decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I agree that abortion should not be a kind of birth control, but the really really odd thing is that the COPs also are against anti-conception, which would help to avoid abortions. So is the Catholic church, or at least the top of it, it seems that the people on the floor have different opinions.
The anti abortion campain has gone rabid, when you start to suggest that you cannot have an abortion in case of rape, incest, health problems with danger for your life, or even if the fetus died!
When you teach at various schools that you get breast cancer if you have an abortion, that condomes do not protect against unwanted pregnancies and aids, and when you teach that sex is icky and anti-conception should not be allowed, because that would mean people just having pleasure from each other..!
Well of course, you are the bad guy, you atheist you! Or, as Bush senior said: "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
"One leader, one nation, one people"
You mean she got all those children by Heavenly intervention?Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
Or maybe there are some men, or man, who should also not be making his own decisions?
I am as pro-choice as they come...but I still believe this so called War on Women is a fabrication for political gain.
By "religious right" I'm referring to those outliers on the right wing of (primarily) the Republican Party. These fundamentalists are, by and large, against any form of birth control, against abortion, of course, against any form of non-heterosexual relationships, and in some of the more extreme cases are against ANY sex outside of marriage. They are against having insurance companies pay for birth control, but not against having them pay for erectile dysfunction medication. They are, by and large, against the concept of sex for any reason other than procreation, yet would howl about persecution if laws were passed denying those ED pills to any but men in a marriage with a fertile wife. They would force every woman to carry every child to term, regardless of the circumstances of conception or of the health of either fetus or mother, yet refuse to sign off on any kind of aid to needy women and children. Once the child is born, they want nothing to do with it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
This woman needs to file a lawsuit against all of the churches which cry out against REAL sex education, against the use of condoms, against the use of birth control, and against abortion. She's done exactly what they want: let THEM pay for her kids.Quote:
I mean, nobody is going to say that this is a typical Obamaesque liberal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bavou_SEj1E
After all, they have taught her, and those like her, that SHE is not responsible for her condition. It's all GOD'S doing, don't you know!
I see nothing funny about it at all! And if you want to use this as an excuse to condemn ALL women, then you have to condemn the fathers of her (and others like her) children just as well. Unless their god has taken an interest, it's likely that she had some help in getting all of those children. Maybe the fathers should have their rights curtailed as well! They certainly haven't made any good decisions.Quote:
its also a funny video either way, and maybe proff that women shouldnt be making their own decisions
Political gain for sure - the idea is to get elected. But the actual outcome - the many new laws or attempts to put laws through as well as sometimes the rhetoric - can be described as a war on women - also for the political gain of cathing people's attention to what is going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
"In the first three months of 2012, legislators introduced 944 provisions related to reproductive health and rights in 45 of the 46 legislatures that have convened this year."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/articl...-in-crosshairs
If you are interested in other topics, I will try to look them up.
this whole thread seems strangely familiar
In what way? All this is a new developement from the upcoming elections, as far as I can see -?Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
I have been battling with problems in front of the pc as well as behind the screen, but I will try to post links by and by.
For now an article on the issue in general, from The Guardian UK by a journalist with a leg in both US and UK:
The Republican party declares war on women
"Forget the economy: this election is becoming a referendum on women's bodies"
[I]"With the notable exception of Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a moderate who announced last week that she'd had enough of the ugliness and would not seek re-election,"
" an Indiana legislator pitched a hissy fit over the girl scouts, the US version of the girl guides, accusing them of promoting lesbianism and feminism and, worst of all, working hand in glove with Planned Parenthood."
"Forget the economy: this election is becoming a referendum on women's bodies,"
"Republicans in Congress have launched a dubious investigation of Planned Parenthood, the century-old women's health organization, and tried to take away its funding. "
"The Senate narrowly defeated an amendment that would have allowed employers to deny insurance coverage for anything the employer found morally or religiously objectionable: contraception, certainly, but perhaps also lung cancer treatment ("you should have stopped smoking"), HIV/Aids testing ("homosexuality is an abomination"), and pre-natal care for single women ("nice girls get themselves a husband before they get themselves a baby")."
" A couple of weeks ago, California Representative Darrell Issa convened an all-male panel on birth control. He claimed that the issue was not women's health, but "religious freedom" (Representative Nancy Pelosi sighed:"I may at some point be moved to explain biology to my colleagues")."
"Therefore, he [Darrel Issa] refused to allow Sandra Fluke, a young law student and an admitted female, to speak (pdf)."
"Democrats later held their own hearing at which Fluke testified that while Georgetown, the Roman Catholic-run university she attends, provides some health insurance, it does not include contraception – and the pill can cost $1,000 per year. Women take contraception for a variety of medical reasons, not only to prevent pregnancy: Fluke recounted the story of a friend, a fellow student, who needed the pill to treat cysts. She couldn't afford it, got sick and had to have an ovary removed."
"Fluke's reward for speaking truth to power? A public trashing. Rush Limbaugh – if not the de facto leader of the Republican party, then surely the clearest expression of its "id" – called her a prostitute and demanded that she post video of her sexual encounters on the internet. After several days of outrage and the loss of some important advertisers on his radio show, Limbaugh issued something approximating an apology. But the conservative blogosphere, the radio provocateurs and Fox News continue to attack Fluke as a Democratic "plant", a "FemiNazi" activist, and, of course, a harlot." "
"Santorum's vision of America is a hybrid Puritan and Catholic theocracy. He constantly rants against Obama's promotion of "secularism", and says the idea of an "absolute" separation of church and state makes him want to throw up."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...eswar-on-women
The author of the article:
Diane Roberts
Profile
Diane Roberts is a writer and broadcaster. A native Floridian, she was educated at Oxford where she was a Marshall scholar. She broadcasts regularly for the BBC and National Public Radio in America, and writes for newspapers such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and the St Petersburg Times. She is also professor of literature and writing at Florida State University and the author of four books, the most recent of which is Dream State, a political history of Florida.
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine:
"In announcing her plans, Snowe, 65, emphasized that she is in good health and was prepared for the campaign ahead. But she said she was swayed by the increasing polarization in Washington.
“Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term,” Snowe said in a statement. “So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail.”"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...WkgR_blog.html
More later.
.
Well, yes, but by whom and for whose gain?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
In the same way that the creationist issue is not fundamentally about Darwin, but about the religious right dictating what can be taught in schools (like sex ed,) and gay marriage is just the latest target in the war over what sexual behaviour is allowed, so the ongoing pressure on ordinary people's rights is currently focussed on women's rights in the belief that it's a soft target (because it can be presented to the base as liberals versus ordinary God-fearing folks.)
"War on women" is perhaps not as technically correct as "political agenda to reverse a range of legal protections of women's rights, women's health issues and reproductive freedom," but as soundbites go, it's close enough.
"Ordinary people's rights" because these changes in the law never touch the political class. They don't need their contraception covered by insurance any more than they need Medicare or Obamacare, they can always get a discreet abortion for their daughters, and battered wives' protection is all about whose legal firm can beat up whose. This is about keeping the little people in their place, male and female; women's rights are just the current target.
Well said, Leo. It reminds me of a line from the movie, Titanic: When informed that half the people on the ship were going to die, Cal Hockley muttered, "Not the better half!" What we're seeing from our supposed representatives in Government, from local to federal levels, is an attempt to make certain that the "lower classes" don't overreach themselves and impinge upon the rights of the elite. Women are bearing the brunt of this attack now, but it won't be long before the rest of us come under attack as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
It seems like no agreement was reached in the thread "Male Discrimination" so someone changed the name and here we are again.Quote:
In what way? All this is a new developement from the upcoming elections, as far as I can see?
Thorne thinks women are repressed
I think society royally shafts men
not getting involved in this one again
Not repressed, just not given equal treatment. How many men would, for example, willingly submit to unnecessary, invasive medical procedures for the sole purpose of satisfying some woman's religious prejudices? Would you, as someone else put it, submit to a transurethral ultrasound before getting a prescription for ED medication, in order to insure that you are fertile, and therefore using the medication to actually father a child? Because someone's religion says that the only purpose for sex is to have babies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
Of course! Forcing them to get better pay than their female counterparts; forcing them to risk suffering and death to have the baby inflicted upon them by their rapist; forcing them to file all that paperwork so their insurance can pay for their V*agra! Such hardships!Quote:
I think society royally shafts men
i really wanted to find a clip of george costanza going crazy over an unresolved issue but to no availQuote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
anywho . . . http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...mination/page3 . . . we've already been over this with no catharsis
Well birth control pills can run anywhere from 1 to 3 dollars per pill.
Which comes out to around 30 dollars a month.
I certainly don't need my insurance to cover that elective cost any more than I need it to cover botox or liposuction.
YOU may not need the help, but there are those who do! And not just so they can feel safe while having sex, but for valid medical reasons. They are used to control severe cramping, even excessive bleeding, during menstrual cycles, problems which can virtually cripple some women for long periods of time each month. How can this NOT be covered by insurance? Just because it's branded as birth control? So rebrand it as hormonal therapy! Unlike botox or liposuction or other optional treatments, this can be a life-altering benefit for many women. Even if its only purpose is to keep her from getting pregnant by her randy, abusive mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I take daily doses of antibiotics to control my rosacea. The pills are cheap, less than $20 per month without insurance. Yet they are covered by my plan, dropping the cost to under $5 per month. For acne control! How can anyone justify NOT covering medication which can help millions of women to function almost normally? If you can afford it without insurance, denuseri, more power to you. For some, though, that $30 each month can mean an extra pair of shoes for her kids, or maybe buying the kid a half-way decent birthday present. Or eating something beside Ramen noodles every day. Not everyone has that much extra cash every month.
Ahh, there's the reason right there! Because it's for WOMEN! And uppity women at that! The kind who want to be able to go to work every day, or go to school everyday, without pain.
or maybe it's because if every woman is going to use a guaranteed 30$ a month she probably doesn't need to, then health insurance premiums are going to go up yet I will see no benefit myself
correct but you HAVE THAT CHOICE which is what it is all about, you have the choice, if you want you can have it if not you don't have to have it
Most People do not see Benifits to anyting til they need the goods or serices in questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
I have never had a car accient is 40 years of driving, but I am required to have it, not having it prohbits me from ownig car or driving
You may never need it but you are required by law to have car insurance, you may not need health insurance now, but what happens one day you get deadly sick, you need to go to the Hosptial but you have no insurance you are in aaccident and needto berushed to the Hospital, but you have no insurance, INSURANCE is just that it makes sure you can afford Health Care hopefully you wil never need Emercency Health Care Services, but what happens if you do, you can't say you wil neevr need to be rushed to a Hosptial or be in an Accident, nobody can but at least you know you have coverage if needed
So, by the same logic, insurance companies shouldn't pay for prostate medications, because they only raise the premiums, but women don't get any benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her