Feminism

[Bishop2b5]

Serious question for anyone who has followed the marches today. What is the agenda and what do they reasonably expect to happen? I honestly cannot tell.

I understand protesting to call attention to an injustice and bring about positive change. There's very little coherent, rational message from today's protesters. This just seems more like a child pitching a temper tantrum to get their way.

If you went back to the 60's and talked to the protesters marching with MLK and asked them what they were protesting and why, the vast majority would have given you a very coherent, reasonable explanation about how they deserved better treatment, equal access to the American dream, etc., and you could've engaged in a peaceful, civil discussion. Protesters today are impossible to talk with. They just chant slogans they don't fully understand and have an incredibly difficult time explaining what they want or why they deserve it. Instead, most will just scream obscenities at you for questioning them, instead of trying to explain and reason with you or have a meaningful discussion. It's the difference between an adult going to their boss to request a raise and being able to justify why it's deserved, and a little kid pitching a fit because they want a toy.

 

[pkt77242]

Serious question: Why does the woman above (and her like-minded friends) think someone should provide her with free birth control? As we know, it's not really free. She just wants it to be free for her, which means someone else has to pay for it.

Yes but no.

Let's take a young women who is relatively poor. She gets pregnant because she can't afford Birth Control. Who pays? If she has an abortion, the baby pays. If she keeps the baby and ends up on WIC and food stamps and other government assistance we all pay. Medicaid pays for the delivery (again the rest of us).

Basically the idea is that it is cheaper to society to pay for the birth control (it cuts down on abortions and unplanned pregnancies) then it is to pay for everything that happens if we don't pay for the birth control.

 

[pkt77242]

I understand protesting to call attention to an injustice and bring about positive change. There's very little coherent, rational message from today's protesters. This just seems more like a child pitching a temper tantrum to get their way.

If you went back to the 60's and talked to the protesters marching with MLK and asked them what they were protesting and why, the vast majority would have given you a very coherent, reasonable explanation about how they deserved better treatment, equal access to the American dream, etc., and you could've engaged in a peaceful, civil discussion. Protesters today are impossible to talk with. They just chant slogans they don't fully understand and have an incredibly difficult time explaining what they want or why they deserve it. Instead, most will just scream obscenities at you for questioning them, instead of trying to explain and reason with you or have a meaningful discussion. It's the difference between an adult going to their boss to request a raise and being able to justify why it's deserved, and a little kid pitching a fit because they want a toy.

Of course you would see it that way. The women that I know that protested did so because of the way that Trump talked about women during the election and previously (Megyn Kelly, the hot mic, walking in on women changing, etc) and the march was a protest of women being treated that way/normalizing that type of behavior by electing him. It was a we will not stand for it/put people on notice. Basically we demand better behavior from our President.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Serious question for anyone who has followed the marches today. What is the agenda and what do they reasonably expect to happen? I honestly cannot tell.

So I attended the even in Chicago today and while I can't speak for the organizers or the other participants, I'll share my thoughts and observations.

1: The mood of the "protest" was overwhelmingly positive. First and foremost, this seemed to be about reassuring people that they're not alone right now.

2: Building a movement. It's no secret that Trump won because he was able to tap into an energetic base. Same with Obama. Moving forward, I think liberals have to rely less on -for lack of a better term- a cult of personality and more on grassroots activism. Coming together against Trump is an easy place to start. I think it's fair to say that whether or not these things were successful won't be clear for several years.

3: Put politicians at all levels on notice. It's also no secret that Democrats have absolutely sucked at local politics lately. This kind of cycles back to point 2 but if Dems are going to be successful moving forward they're going to have to be able to organize much better and punish politicians who vote against certain things we view as important. Part of the idea was to show that we're capable of grassroots organization around certain core ideals.

4: Finally, I think there was an implicit threat. Unlike Trump himself in 2012, nobody was seriously suggesting that we stop Trump from taking power. But a lot of people were communicating that legitimate power has limits and that if Trump follows through with some of the things he said while campaigning he will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

I think that it would be a mistake to look at these (or any protest) as anything but a first step.

I think I marched because I view Trump as an unprecedented embarrassment to the nation and wanted to signal that I don't approve. His self-serving speech at the CIA today where he stood in front of the wall of fallen heroes and spent more time talking about himself than anything else did nothing to alleviate that.

I'm more optimistic about the future of the country today though than I've been at any time since the election. And ultimately, I think that was the point.

 

[IrishLax]

Serious question for anyone who has followed the marches today. What is the agenda and what do they reasonably expect to happen? I honestly cannot tell.

It's actually a huge point of controversy what the "agenda" was and has caused a lot of consternation within the marchers.

What everyone can agree on is that they don't like Trump. Most of the marchers also cared about "reproductive rights"... one of my wife's co-workers made a sign that said "don't tread on my pussy" over the segmented snake (was actually pretty well done).

They were very effective in communicating that there are millions of people who aren't fans of Trump and his rhetoric. Not sure they accomplished any of their tertiary goals that some organizers had though as the message got garbled because many different people wanted it to be different things.

 

[IrishinSyria]

It's actually a huge point of controversy what the "agenda" was and has caused a lot of consternation within the marchers.

What everyone can agree on is that they don't like Trump. Most of the marchers also cared about "reproductive rights"... one of my wife's co-workers made a sign that said "don't tread on my pussy" over the segmented snake (was actually pretty well done).

They were very effective in communicating that there are millions of people who aren't fans of Trump and his rhetoric. Not sure they accomplished any of their tertiary goals that some organizers had though as the message got garbled because many different people wanted it to be different things.

Yeah definitely a very open question whether libs will be able to transition from universal dislike of Trump to an effective opposition and some of the behind the scenes politiking that went on don't make me feel great about the answer to that.

 

[Rack Em]

It's actually a huge point of controversy what the "agenda" was and has caused a lot of consternation within the marchers.

What everyone can agree on is that they don't like Trump. Most of the marchers also cared about "reproductive rights"... one of my wife's co-workers made a sign that said "don't tread on my pussy" over the segmented snake (was actually pretty well done).

They were very effective in communicating that there are millions of people who aren't fans of Trump and his rhetoric. Not sure they accomplished any of their tertiary goals that some organizers had though as the message got garbled because many different people wanted it to be different things.

This is what it seemed like from the outside based on my Facebook newsfeed. The posts I saw were basically "so proud of all these women", "so inspired we made a difference", and varying degrees of women with vagina hats and middle fingers in front of Trump Tower. I didn't get it.

Basically they don't like Trump, so wominz rights? Frankly, I'm not too fond of him, but if he gut punches both establishments it would be likely be a productive 4-8 years. I'll never understand the mentality of "didn't get my way, so play the victim."

 

[Bishop2b5]

Of course you would see it that way. The women that I know that protested did so because of the way that Trump talked about women during the election and previously (Megyn Kelly, the hot mic, walking in on women changing, etc) and the march was a protest of women being treated that way/normalizing that type of behavior by electing him. It was a we will not stand for it/put people on notice. Basically we demand better behavior from our President.

You'll disagree, but I believe there are more effective means to achieve such goals than protesting and shouting slogans. Human nature being what it is, when you insult, lambast, yell at, and threaten someone or a group, their tendency is to push back or turn a deaf ear to you and your cause. If my wife starts screaming at me and threatening me and demands that I help more around the house, my reaction is likely to be that I'll shout back at her and bring up things I wish she'd do, bring up all her faults, and the odds are she won't get what she wants. If, instead, she sits down and discusses it with me calmly and asks me to help more, offers me some good reason to do so, and is reasonable & civil about it, I'll probably be doing a lot more housework in the future and we'll both be happier. Rioting, demands, threats, etc. aren't really all that effective. Look at how well the riots, threats, disruptions and etc. at the Trump rallies worked. All it did was help Trump fire up his base, bring out more voters for him, and further drove a wedge between the two sides.

I'd much rather see various groups of women, Blacks, Latinos or whoever, sit down with Trump and have reasonable, civil discussions about what they need and give him a chance to meet those needs. It doesn't mean he can or will give them everything they want, since it will be impossible to give everyone everything they want, but it's a darn sight more likely to be effective than what we've seen the past couple of days. Do they really want to effect a positive change or just to pitch a fit?

 

[wizards8507]

Yes but no.

Let's take a young women who is relatively poor. She gets pregnant because she can't afford Birth Control. Who pays? If she has an abortion, the baby pays. If she keeps the baby and ends up on WIC and food stamps and other government assistance we all pay. Medicaid pays for the delivery (again the rest of us).

Basically the idea is that it is cheaper to society to pay for the birth control (it cuts down on abortions and unplanned pregnancies) then it is to pay for everything that happens if we don't pay for the birth control.

Bullshit. That's like saying cars should be free because sometimes poor people steal cars and it's cheaper to subsidize them than to litigate all the grand theft auto cases.

Also, condoms are like 50 cents. There's literally nobody who's getting pregnant because they "can't afford" contraception.

That said, if there was a political compromise out there that made birth control 100% subsidized and abortion 100% illegal, I'd be all for it.

 

[kmoose]

We do now have confirmation that at least one Trump operative infiltrated the Women's March, yesterday:

www.flickr.com/photos/73399011@N00/2634736857


* after all of these years, you would think that I would have learned how to embed photos from a URL? Sorry!

 

[kmoose]

Of course you would see it that way. The women that I know that protested did so because of the way that Trump talked about women during the election and previously (Megyn Kelly, the hot mic, walking in on women changing, etc) and the march was a protest of women being treated that way/normalizing that type of behavior by electing him. It was a we will not stand for it/put people on notice. Basically we demand better behavior from our President.

But see that's the problem........... No one has seriously said, "I'm so glad that Trump was elected. Now I can go into Payroll and grab that new girl's pussy!" The whole premise is built on a lie. It's not all that different than "Hands up, don't shoot". And I'm not trying to equate the severity or seriousness of the two; in one situation, a young man died. No woman that I am aware of has died from Donald Trump grabbing her pussy. But, in both cases, a group of angry people used hyperbole to make their point, and the "unwashed masses" picked it up and ran with it as if the hyperbole were fact, and not, you know.......... an exaggeration! We have become so soft as a nation that you don't have to be an actual victim anymore. If you can just create the impression that you are a victim, then you can shut off any debate because anyone taking the other side will be portrayed as "victim hating", or "victim shaming". Having said that, I only have one problem with the Women's marches from yesterday: Protesting rude, obnoxious, crude, and inappropriate behavior by having Madonna yelling "Fuck You!" and admitting that she would like to blow up the White House, is just not the way I would go about it.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Yes but no.

Let's take a young women who is relatively poor. She gets pregnant because she can't afford Birth Control. Who pays? If she has an abortion, the baby pays. If she keeps the baby and ends up on WIC and food stamps and other government assistance we all pay. Medicaid pays for the delivery (again the rest of us).

Basically the idea is that it is cheaper to society to pay for the birth control (it cuts down on abortions and unplanned pregnancies) then it is to pay for everything that happens if we don't pay for the birth control.

If she is poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, the government already covers 90% of the cost, and many states cover the additional 10%. It's a non-issue.

Why, then, were the Democrats so keen on forcing ND et al to pay for birth control? Simple: they want to set the legal precedent that can then be used to force ND et al to pay for abortion (birth control being relatively uncontroversial among the public, unlike abortion).

 

[Legacy]

Aren't we witnessing a deathsong based on the misperception that concerns over an array of issues matter? Isn't this a miscalculation that a cadre of elites with specific agendas care much? Can we consign this largest protest in U.S. history as a last gasp of sixty years in a massive pink wave goodbye? Shouldn't we be glad they brought their daughters and husbands to learn the hard lessons of true government in America? Did they not see that the 2016 election was not an aberration but a harbinger of hardened hearts rather than a rogue uprising? We need to pound a lesson into them that even a misogynist who in no way represents their values can become President and to whom they may only be supplicant. Because America has devolved into anti- in the face of poor alternatives put forward as choices. Have they not understood the lessons of Occupy Wall Street and Tienanmen Square? What good has that done? that healthcare is not anything but access? that schools should not be gun-free? that wars are over when we say they are over? that -isms are four letter concepts? that we no longer listen? that we have never celebrated diversity? We are a skeptical and cynical nation who only have time for stereotyping.

Women’s March Is The Biggest Protest In US History As An Estimated 2.9 Million March

Millions of Americans have taken to the streets from New York to Los Angeles and everywhere in between as the Women's Marches on Washington is estimated to be the biggest one-day protest in US history

We need to give them a nod for their peaceful commitments. We've secured America and will be ready for the only alternative to non-violent demonstrations. They are a mistake, misguided, a vocal and powerless majority, but shall soon be very, very happy anyway.

 

[wizards8507]

 

[TDHeysus]

SIAP


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QSyczwuTQfo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Legacy]

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Marchers Came Face-to-Face at the Women’s March

“You can be pro-life and you can be a feminist. A lot of people separate the two. Feminism is standing up for the best for women, and demanding that women get the best in our country,” anti-choice marcher Annie Riley, of upstate New York, told the Cut.

“We wanted to show that you can be pro-women and pro- pretty much everything that’s being represented at this march, and also pro-life,” Katherine Hamlet, of New Jersey, told the Cut.

Despite the overwhelmingly pro-choice atmosphere at the march, Hamlet told the Cut she felt welcome. “I’m in a minority, and before we came to the march [we worried we wouldn’t be welcome],” she said, referring to the news about New Wave’s partnership status. “But since we’ve been here everyone has been respectful and kind.”

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How the ultrasound pushed the idea that a fetus is a person, <a href="https://twitter.com/moiragweigel">@moiragweigel</a> reports: <a href="https://t.co/0qRz8nexLs">https://t.co/0qRz8nexLs</a> <a href="https://t.co/8Z9TYej9xl">pic.twitter.com/8Z9TYej9xl</a></p>— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/823890657957834753">January 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Who are the science deniers now?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic">@TheAtlantic</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/moiragweigel">@moiragweigel</a> How x-rays pushed the idea that we have bones.</p>— Anarchohindu (@anarchohindu) <a href="https://twitter.com/anarchohindu/status/823900572323553281">January 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

Now the trans crowd is pissed at the women's march people because it implied that a vagina is somehow linked to womanhood. They're calling it the sisterhood versus the cis-terhood.

 

[Legacy]

Indiana House Bill 1337 became Public Law 213, signed by Gov Mike Pence 3/24/16

Bill details:

DIGEST

Abortion. Requires the state department of health to develop certain information concerning perinatal hospice care. Requires physicians to provide information about perinatal hospice care to a pregnant woman who is considering an abortion because the unborn child has been diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly. Requires documentation as a matter of informed consent to an abortion that the pregnant woman received the required information about perinatal hospice care. Provides that the gender of the fetus and the medical indication by diagnosis code for the fetus and the mother must be reported on the pregnancy termination form for an early pre-viability termination. Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability. Provides for disciplinary sanctions and civil liability for wrongful death if a person knowingly or intentionally performs a sex selective abortion or an abortion conducted because of a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of Down syndrome or any other disability. Provides that informed consent for an abortion must be obtained in a private setting. Provides that a pregnant woman considering an abortion must be given the opportunity to view the fetal ultrasound imaging and hear the auscultation of the fetal heart tone at least 18 hours before the abortion is performed and at the same time that informed consent is obtained. Provides that a written agreement between a physician performing an abortion and a physician who has written admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous county concerning the management of possible complications of the services must be renewed annually. Requires the state department of health (state department) to submit copies of admitting privileges and written agreements between physicians to other hospitals in the county and contiguous counties where abortions are performed. Requires that certain forms must include lines for the signature of the physician or other provider and the professional credentials of the physician or other provider. Provides that a person who knowingly transports an aborted fetus into, or out of, Indiana commits a Class A misdemeanor, unless the aborted fetus is transported for the sole purpose of final disposition. Provides that a miscarried or aborted fetus must be interred or cremated by a facility having possession of the remains. Requires a person or facility having possession of a miscarried or aborted fetus to ensure that the miscarried fetus or aborted fetus is preserved until final disposition occurs. Specifies that: (1) a person is not required to designated a name for the miscarried or aborted fetus; and (2) information submitted with respect to the disposition of a miscarried or aborted fetus that may be used to identify the parent or parents of a miscarried fetus or a pregnant who had an abortion is confidential and must be redacted from any public records maintained under the burial permit law. Specifies that miscarried and aborted fetuses may be cremated by simultaneous cremation. Excludes the final disposition of a miscarried or aborted fetus from the law governing the treatment of infectious or pathological waste. Makes conforming changes. Provides that the performance of an abortion solely because of the race, color, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry of the fetus or a violation of certain statutes protecting the right of conscience regarding abortion is a discriminatory practice for purposes of the civil rights law. Defines fetal tissue. Prohibits an individual from acquiring, receiving, selling, or transferring fetal tissue. Makes it a Level 5 felony to unlawfully: (1) transfer; and (2) collect fetal tissue. Establishes an exemption for the criminal penalty of unlawful use of an embryo if the transfer or receipt of a fetus was requested in writing by a biological parent for purposes of an autopsy.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Of course you would see it that way. The women that I know that protested did so because of the way that Trump talked about women during the election and previously (Megyn Kelly, the hot mic, walking in on women changing, etc) and the march was a protest of women being treated that way/normalizing that type of behavior by electing him. It was a we will not stand for it/put people on notice. Basically we demand better behavior from our President.

Maybe pick better female celebs to voice the cause, than ironic ones.

 

[Irish#1]

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Marchers Came Face-to-Face at the Women’s March

I'm guessing the Pro-Lifers brought their own signs announcing their stance on abortion. Pretty smart move if you think about it. If the Pro-choice had decided to block, fight and somehow prevent Pro-Lifers from marching, then the prevailing theme of the march would have been blown out of the water.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How the ultrasound pushed the idea that a fetus is a person, <a href="https://twitter.com/moiragweigel">@moiragweigel</a> reports: <a href="https://t.co/0qRz8nexLs">https://t.co/0qRz8nexLs</a> <a href="https://t.co/8Z9TYej9xl">pic.twitter.com/8Z9TYej9xl</a></p>— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/823890657957834753">January 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Who are the science deniers now?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic">@TheAtlantic</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/moiragweigel">@moiragweigel</a> How x-rays pushed the idea that we have bones.</p>— Anarchohindu (@anarchohindu) <a href="https://twitter.com/anarchohindu/status/823900572323553281">January 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Nonsense on stilts.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1860 Democrats: "It's not a human."<br>2017 Democrats: "It's not a human."</p>— Razor (@hale_razor) <a href="https://twitter.com/hale_razor/status/823925908578836480">January 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hale_razor">@hale_razor</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Rand_Simberg">@Rand_Simberg</a> More accurately: Dems 1860 and 2017 - "It is property and has no rights other than those the owner may grant."</p>— .30 Cal MagazineClip (@heatpacker) <a href="https://twitter.com/heatpacker/status/823945604674027520">January 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XUDtoDAGVE8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Valpodoc85]

Now the trans crowd is pissed at the women's march people because it implied that a vagina is somehow linked to womanhood. They're calling it the sisterhood versus the cis-terhood.

This is a big controversy within the Feminist movement. Goes to the core of what makes a woman. Is it learned/chosen or innate.

http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophybites/Amia_Srinivasan_on_What_is_a_Woman__2.mp3

Good podcast (20 minutes) on the subject

 

[yankeehater]

A woman caller to a radio show made this observation about the protest.

Don't you find it ironic that the woman who made a living grabbing her crotch on stage is protesting a man because he said he wanted to grab a woman's crotch.

I LOL'd after she said that.

 

[TDHeysus]

tolerance, and diversity:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fVw6iwmXvZY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishinSyria]

tolerance, and diversity:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fVw6iwmXvZY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

True and I should have written what I was thinking. What I meant, is that in reading Syria's response, it came across as a deflection away from the assault. Rather than focusing on the assault, Syria gives kudos for the video showing the apology.

Since you asked, comparing and contrasting this video with the original one is why I brought it up. One is a fair portrayal of an unfortunate/criminal event and the other is not.

 

[Quinntastic]

Are you guys me? Cause if you're not, you don't get to have an opinion on the decisions going on between me and my doctor.

Period.

And if you want to start forcing women to carry a fetus they don't want to term and force them to birth it, I will be happy to drive the baby to your doorstep and drop it off for you to care/pay for for 18+ years.

 

[GATTACA!]

Are you guys me? Cause if you're not, you don't get to have an opinion on the decisions going on between me and my doctor.

Period.

And if you want to start forcing women to carry a fetus they don't want to term and force them to birth it, I will be happy to drive the baby to your doorstep and drop it off for you to care/pay for for 18+ years.

Oh boy.

This should be fun.

 

[IrishLax]

Are you guys me? Cause if you're not, you don't get to have an opinion on the decisions going on between me and my doctor.

Period.

And if you want to start forcing women to carry a fetus they don't want to term and force them to birth it, I will be happy to drive the baby to your doorstep and drop it off for you to care/pay for for 18+ years.

I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here before pro-lifers utterly eviscerate this post...

When does that "fetus" become a person? Because a 5 month old "fetus" can survive outside the womb in many cases... making it a living, breathing person. There isn't any nuance in your post about that, which is the biggest philosophical sticking point of the whole abortion debate.

And then if your argument is that you should be able to murder a person because you don't want to be financially responsible for it, that's literally the dumbest possible argument you can make considering how many people sit around praying and waiting to adopt a baby. There are lots of arguments for pro-choice, the "I should be able to do whatever I want, period" argument doesn't fly with basic modern society/laws that prohibit all kinds of freedom of action, and "I don't want to pay for it" is a self-indulgent non-starter. So you should really rephrase what you said if you want it to be taken seriously.

Now I'm done #Mansplaining...