Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Please don't ask law abiding taxpayers and church going folks (who are far more philanthropic than leftist secularists) who want nothing more than to run our schools and hospitals in service to the Lord without staining their faith with secular rules that, in the final analysis, are only about passing costs to employers rather than access to contraception.
Show me one woman in the United States who hasn't been able to access contraception. Just one link will do. It's as easy as going to to the doctor and then stopping off at Walgreen's.
If liberals took the time to understand the issues, rather than just trashing all things spiritual and the believers, they would have far happier lives.
Thank you all so much for listening to me and God be with all of you!
Seriously, fuck off. Something can be terrible for multiple people, of multiple genders, you know? I mean, the Shoah was pretty shitty to the Gypsies, Poles, and Homos too, you know.
Are you too vain to give up your privileged status as victim to make common call with others who may also be victimized, admittedly to a lesser extent, by said legislation? Business end of gun, meet foot.
@6
Normally, I wouldn't bother with scum such as you. I could talk about privilege in discussion of the tax-exempt status your religious institutions receive, despite organized religion's obvious war on the separation of church and state. I could talk about how you're an obvious shill for big corporations, but that's not exactly true. You see, pretty much all health-insurance providers provide coverage for contraception because it is less expensive--that is, fewer medical expenses related to pregnancy--than not providing it. Companies in fact spend more for health-insurance if they choose to deny their own employees their own right to self-determination. I could also ask if it would be righteous if your employer was a Christian Scientist who believed virtually all form of medical practice to be against his religion, and therefore demanded you adhere to his religious beliefs by not having useful health insurance of any type.
But I will instead begin by providing the following link, just one out of the millions possible you asked for:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-…
Now go eat shit and die.
If conservatives took the time to understand the issues, rather than just trashing people who aren't exactly like them, they would have far happier lives.
P.S. If lettuce cost $50 a head, you wouldn't say that people have access to lettuce. What Rick Santorum and many others on the religious Right want to do is allow employers to remove coverage for birth control from the health plans of their employees, effectively imposing their own ideas of morality on others. If part of one's wages pay for health insurance, one shouldn't have legitimate medical expenses excluded from it based on the whims of an employer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_win…
They put out the most ridiculous concepts and then "negotiate" back from them. In the end they get what they want (more restrictions on women) and the concept of even MORE restrictions are now discussed as real possibilities.
If Republicans think women are so stupid that they don't even know their own bodies, shouldn't all women HAVE to be on contraception (unless married and always with a male escort in public)? Because women are viewed by that party as so stupid and so slutty (unless married, then they are just stupid of course), aren't they all just waiting to be raped? It should just be common sense to Republicans to protect vaginas from themselves.
Sure, I'll stop fighting for women's access to contraception, when men stop having their damn Viagra subsidized. I'll stop fighting for women's health when all religious organizations quit taking tax payer's money to fund their discrimination. I'll stop fighting for women when I get to decide exactly where my taxes go (puppies and roads).
huh? you're kinda big on the hyperbole. take it down a notch and you might seem reasonable.
Yeah, the "war on women" sucks for men too, since men also want to have sex without having babies. It's not only about women having access to abortion and birth control though.
You can't call it a war on men any more that you can say it's a war on women.
What the R's are doing is more like a war on humanity. No social services, no worker’s rights, no taxes for the wealthy, healthcare only for those with money, no special needs care, no education, no cash support for the most desperate, no food stamps, no contraception, no life-saving abortions, no it’s-better-for-the-world-in-general abortions, no I-need-this-for-reasons-that-are-none-of-your-business abortions, an abundance of wars for everyone, prisons and death sentences galore, no public transit, pave nature, no contraception for anyone, kill wildlife, no porn, protect the potential humans only until they are born, enforce abject poverty for single mothers, no WIC, no preschool, no childcare for working parents, no guarantee of housing for the impoverished.
This isn’t a war on women or on men specifically, it’s a war on humanity, compassion. I would say that it’s a war on what separates us from other animals, but most animal species take care of their own; Republicans are the exception.
I agree. But the "war" on compassion won't make headlines.
In that "war" there are the various "battles" against things that are important to a majority of women.
So for the sake of semantics and alliteration, I prefer grouping those "battles" into "The War on Women".
If the Republicans lose "The War on Women" then they will most likely lose the other battles in "The War on Compassion".
I hope.
1) Duggar-like anthill families that actually practice what they preach.
2) Stunted, frustrated man-babies who aren't getting any, so why should you?
3) Bathroom stall inhabiting "bearded" closet cases who won't be getting any women pregnant any time soon *wink wink nudge nudge*.
kersey is a type that one often finds in discussing gender issues, or any other progressive issue for that matter: the Movement types say they want people to support them, then make them feel unwelcome when they do come (causing them to leave), then bitch that those people that they made feel unwelcome aren't there to support them.
If your church and the religious institutions you patronize start paying your taxes like the rest of us, then maybe we can talk about making other "secular rules" not apply to you.
And it's important to realize that Christians/Catholics are not a monolithic block. Plenty of Christians use and support universal, affordable access to contraception. Why should your radical conservative sect get special priveleges based on your extremist theology?
Men have always fucked whatever they wanted, since they could just walk away. It's nice to have a kinder and gentler model these days, yes, and I fully appreciate the men who'd rather have non procreative sex with equals, but the male half of the human race did just fine for thousands of years without contraception, so I'm not exactly holding my breath here, and I'm not rebranding it away from #waronwomen either.
And there's always something a little insulting about implying the reason you should want to support a group's rights is because of how you yourself will be affected. I'm not gay but I've always strongly supported gay rights.
Probably because they haven't? Their official position on this whole thing is to keep things exactly the way they are now vis-a-vis insurance. How does that deny anyone access to contraception, exactly? Whom is forbidden to buy/possess/use contraception under the Republican plan that wasn't allowed before?
No one.
Liberals should be giving less to charity because they would prefer government be the social safety net rather than a bunch of private organizations. Liberals give less to charity because they want their higher taxes to help the needy... higher taxes paying for government social programs is the liberal's charity. The added bonus is that the government doesn't proselytize while helping out, unlike some religious charities.
Understand?
Anyone with a good enough job to have health insurance can afford birth control.
That's an awful big V for victim you are wearing for someone who is, no doubt, cisgendered. The top of the victimhood pyramid has moved on.
But really, if you care about these issues, you need to work on your messaging. You are alienating your allies, and being a stereotype that the other side can use against your cause.
Must we redefine and contort every phrase to suit our personal ideological fetishes just for the sake of a rhetorical flourish?
The Reagan administration hung an already strained over-the-top Johnson administration metaphor up a flag pole, and thirty years later people are STILL saluting it. Stop calling everything a war, already!
Jeebus H. Chronst. Could ALL you fuckers get hung up any more on useless hyperbolic semantic bullshit? Abandon this simplistic strident framing of every single issue and maybe agree it's all very complicated. Then MAYBE you could fight the opposition with, I don't know, reason.
Reader01 status:
[ ] Not told
[ ] Told
[X] Knights of the Told Republic
Wait. Does not using the "war" word also apply to war analogies?
And Starbucks is also frequently held out as that exceedingly rare corporation that gives low-paid employees health insurance. Congratulations on finding the exception that proves the rule.
venomlash status:
[x] tendentious
[x] pedantic
[x] owned
As one of the few penissed people that showed up for the PP rally here in the capitol of Texas, I thought the signs reading, "Honk if you like healthy vaginas," was spot on.
In fact I think PP should have a campaign to bring awareness to straight men: Attend our rallies, there full of young women with healthy vaginas.
That may be a little tongue-in-cheek, or off message if you are a message purist. Nevertheless, it does not negate the information already out there. It might make a few people who would otherwise stroll on by, begin to relate the issue to their persoanl lives.
How is that bad...unless one is more concerned with making it known that they have the most, "persecution privilege"?
I plan on having kids in the next couple years and as a person with a uterus, I'm scared for my life. I thank the stars I live in WA and have health insurance, but that does not make me safe from these policies. They literally kill women. To equate the effect that these may have on my cis male partner to the direct effects they have on my body as and my life is irresponsible, insulting, privileged, and dilutes the issue. Discuss the kyriarchy and deconstruct how oppression affects everyone, but do not call this an war on men (who have sex with women) - it is not.
@38 If you're more interested in tone arguments than the issue at hand, there is no way to win with you anyways. As for being trans inclusive, I was never being trans exclusive - Dan was. And that is what I'm responding to. Direct your scorn appropriately.
Your poor, poor partner and future child
/facepalm
Lemme guess: you've never actually paid for birth control, have you? I'm not talking about a pack of condoms now and then; I mean a regiment to ensure that a woman (and I know you aren't one) does not get pregnant. Because it ain't cheap at all:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2…
Birth control costs average around $1000 per year. A woman's median income is around $37K. Housing costs (including utilities) average around $17K, food around $6K, transportation (car/gas) around $8K, taxes around $5K. That's already $36K, and excludes expenses like clothing. Still convinced a woman with "a good enough job to have health insurance can afford birth control"?
If it looks like women are barely scraping by... that's because they are, on average. Men have a median income of $47K, so their income after base expenditures is significantly higher.
Your fears are perfectly reasonable, but your divisive criticism of something that will help you win the struggle is not.
Okay, you win. You have the most persecution privelege.
Now that you have won that contest, let's talk about how to wake up 48% of the American population that we need to defeat these fascist nut-jobs.
As for the debate about whether or not this is also a "War Against Men," it is and it isn't. Yes, sane men should realize they have a stake and fight as vociferously as women are. And #17 is spot on that the entire GOP playbook is best understood as a War on Humanity. And, my god, going after porn? Good luck with that.
However, it IS a war on women when you have GOP legislators saying that women should be forced to carry stillborns to term like farm animals. It IS a war on women when the entire focus is on policing women for daring to have any sexual agency or desire. It IS a war on women when it's clear that this is fundamentally about reasserting an overtly patriarchal society where men legally own their wives and their wives' bodies while they can still getting some on the side when the itch needs scratching. This is backlash shit--hateful, misogynistic, fear-headed, closet-comforting, omg-vaginas-are-scary backlash shit.
Again, we need sane men who speak up for their sex partners, their female friends, their mothers and their daughters, but let's not kid ourselves as to what this is really about.
Actually I have, over long periods of time with several partners. Half of it, anyway. It's never been more than $600/yr total, with no insurance. Very, very rarely is it anywhere near as expensive as you posit the average to be ($1k/year). So yeah, on average it absolutely is affordable.
Name one living woman or group of women whose access to birth control will be reduced in any way by keeping the insurance rules as they are. Just one. Go ahead, I'll wait.
"You are not "free" to use the state to force your morality on others."
Yup. If only everyone could learn that.
If your support is that fragile, then it's not support. I've been called a "white bitch" by a number of black people for literally doing NOTHING to them, but I still support equal rights and opportunity for black people, because I'm not a simpering weenie. Try it out sometime.
That DID happen, you fucking idiot. Once the rebels were done killing the actual aristocrats, they started executing each other for not being morally pure enough. If you're just another American ignorant of basic world history, then how about you not try to make any historical analogies?
SLOG is not the place to learn or discuss how to end sexism or racism or homophobia. Branch out, children.
Will sweet plastic jesus please pretty please save us from orthodoxy sniffers and process fetishists? Do you want a superb example of where this leads? Take this an example: "16 years after organizers began in 1996 [and after celebrity help and after $10m in the bank], there is still no National Women's History Museum ... Its leaders have failed to secure -- or even identify -- a location for a building, and sometimes have downplayed the very idea that they need one."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08…
I also note that you failed to address the discretionary income side of the equation. $1K may not seem like a lot when looking at gross income, but it can quickly become a burden when you factor in all other expenses.
Try a real question. Better yet, try actually responding to the points I raised--no response, for example, about Santorum's stated positions on sex? You're cherry picking again, not to mention intellectually dishonest to the point of nonsense.
Do you morally object to alcoholism? If so, should insurance companies have the "freedom" to not cover liver transplants for alcoholics? What about obesity? How about we allow insurance companies to deny treatment for Type II Diabetes because it is the fat person's fault for getting fat in the first place? Oh, and the fucking obvious one: if you object to "paying for" others' sex lives, why aren't we arguing about the fact that insurance companies cover erectile dysfunction medications?
There is no issue of "freedom" here in a bill that requires insurance companies to cover birth control at no cost. If the state was FORCING all women to TAKE birth control, then, yes. But trying to force women to pay to punish them for their sex lives IS forcing your limited sexual morality on others. It is also, as others noted above, against the insurance companies' best interests, as providing birth control is far cheaper than paying for prenatal care and labor.
Again, you might try actually thinking and using reason. Your arguments are alarmist talking points based on childlike understandings of the role of the state and what makes a democracy, ya know, something other than a theocracy.
I find it odd, too, that you'd slag me for misunderstanding the Terror and the revolutionaries "executing each other for not being morally pure enough" when I (and others) have been arguing against not going down the road of "you're not pure enough!".
By all means have some passion in your argument. Sure. Have a rallying cry.
But bullshit, and that's what calling every policy debate a "war" is, just stirs up the plebes and really doen't get work done.
My god, people. As we can see right here in this thread inflammatory rhetoric inevitably divides people that SHOULD be agreeing.
Call it "Unreasonable," condemn it as "hyperbole," but don't tell me that your milquetoast approach would give us the same poll numbers.
Whether or not the "boys-against-girls" church of feminism where you worship can acknowledge that men have something at stake in reproductive issues is irrelevant. We do.
If I was a right winger and we stick with the war metaphor I'd not be worried about defeat: I'd roll over the enemy while they were deconstructing whether olive drab was an oppressive colour for tanks and whether the infantry should really welcome the input of the air arm because admitting air issues into the debate might negate the ideological purity of the ground effort.
When governments declare war on each other, civilians inevitably get caught up in the crossfire. Even if the soldiers from one or both countries genuinely try to avoid targeting civilians, civilians always suffer and always feel like they're under attack.
When resisting the advances of a foreign power, does it make any sense for soldiers to insist to their own civilians that those civilians are not the real targets, and that the invader's attacks are really primarily directed to the soldiers/ the government? Or do you rally everyone together against your common enemy-- the one who attacked your way of life?
@69: and that's one of the problems, certainly. It is difficult for those of us on the left to cooperate on vitally important matters simply because so many component groups within our coalition demand priority, or worse, exclusivity for their views. It isn't enough, for example that men should support women's reproductive freedom, or whites try to end race hatred, they should also shut the fuck up about their own concerns, or endure slagging from their allies ("white bitch", anyone?). I have a myriad of flaws as a social and political animal, but I've never had any trouble distinguishing between sworn enemies and friends that piss me off, a rather banal trait that I find in puzzlingly short supply among my would-be allies on progressive issues.
"...ever since the War on Women began in earnest (when Virginia tried to pass its pelvic exam requirement) and it got its name, women's support for Romney and the Republicans has dropped dramatically."
Bingo.
Remember, in an election it is all about getting more votes than your opponent(s).
You do that by:
1. Getting the base out to vote for you.
2. Getting your opponent's base to STAY HOME.
3. Getting enough people not in 1 or 2 to vote for you to push you over the top.
People can argue about whether the rhetoric will get people involved.
But the other side is whether it will convince people ON YOUR OPPONENT'S SIDE to disengage. And that seems to be working.
It's amazing how "we will force this thing up your vagina whether you like it or not" clarified matters for aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawful lot of voters.
BTW. The reason women are pissed off isn't because of some god damned meme or what ever it you think you came up with.
It's because of what the Republicans themselves have done. Nobody had to scream "War on Women!" It's self fucking evident.
I'm declaring a war on declaring war on things.
@74 WE ARE THE PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA! Splitter!
Guys? Women? Can we focus for a minute?
We are not the enemy. Challenging the credentials and dogma of every progressive is not going to bring victory. Take a deep breath, stop squabbling amongst yourselves, find common cause and get out there and do the right thing. For once in your damned lives, focus. Please.
The GOP are masters at this. It's about time we learned how to use it, too, instead of climbing up our ivory towers so we can feel like we've risen above, only to have our asses handed to us on election day. Too much is at stake, and moral superiority is a luxury we can't afford anymore.
Actually, the GOP has still not gone after "access" to contraception. The left seems to want to re-define "access" to mean "someone else pays for you". (Under that definition, I don't have access to my house, and I suppose if the Ds want the government to buy everyone a house, they will accuse the Rs of trying to "deny people access to housing" and waging a "war on homeownership".) If the GOP were to have flat-out won the recent contraception scrimmages, everyone would have had just as much access to contraception as before.
There's been no end of fantastic support -- from both men and women -- against this completely batshit GOP tactic that's come roaring up like nobody's business during this campaign. And that's what we should focus on.
Not..."No, really, this is a war on MEN, which is why you should care after all." Oh come on. Do you know how selfish that reframing sounds? You should care because it's a war on women. That should be enough. There's plenty of things targeted directly at men that I care about because they're targeted at men, and it's not fair either.
But this particular one is flat out against women. And we all need to push it back.
Oh for fuck's sake. NOBODY here is saying that it isn't a war on women. Nobody. There's just a few of us saying, "holy crap, it's a war on men, too". Not that we have bigger problems. Not that our problems are more important. Not that our problems are morally superior. Not that the rights of women aren't vital, important and indispensible. We're only saying that to some extent we are also targets we should note that and fight on that basis, amongst the others, together. All we are saying is that we don't get diminished or ignored as we fight beside women, and that we don't play oppression olympics, that there is no dissonance between women's fight and our own. That, apparently, is too much for some people. But, hey, if turning down all those votes that'll come from guys who don't want to be forced by the GOP to become involuntary fathers and who don't want the Republicans monitoring their jack off material is that important to you, then by all means play exclusivity bingo.
"That's what we should focus on." I say hit the fuckers with everything that will hurt 'em.
Dan said:
"It is a war on women, of course, but let's not forget that it's also a war on men . . . . Attempts to ban contraception—or to make contraception more difficult to obtain, just as the right has done to abortion—is an attack on male sexual freedom too, even if many men don't see the connection. "
I don't get why you can't accept what Dan said, why you can't recognize that male sexual freedom is also impacted. Dan wasn't saying we should focus on men being the principle victims. If that is what you read, then you read wrong. And if it gets more people involved in the fight, if some men who might otherwise not give money or a vote or whatever are moved to do so because they see a more direct connection, selfish or not, then who cares? Why in the hell do you want to nitpick an argumetn that shows other people suffer in addition ot the directly targeted group? Why is it so important to you to see it as a zero sum game?
Special, single purpose doctor visits just to get that scrip? No, they don't, and attributing the whole cost of that visit to the expense of birth control is disingenuous.
"@56 Poor women, for starters." How, precisely? In what way will keeping their access identical to what it is now make things more difficult for ANYONE? Besides, the overwhelming majority of poor women are uninsured to start with, so to them this whole debate is about as relevant as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"Santorum's stated positions on sex?"
What in the blue fuck to his opinions have to do with anything? He had is ass kicked out of elected office a long time ago and he's not returning.
"why aren't we arguing about the fact that insurance companies cover erectile dysfunction medications?"
Probably because erectile dysfunction is a disease and pregnancy isn't.
"Do you morally object to [list]"
My moral objections or lack thereof are immaterial. They should certainly be allowed to charge differential rates for alcoholics and the obese though, for example.
"There is no issue of "freedom" here in a bill that requires insurance companies to cover birth control at no cost."
You realize that's a literal impossibility, right? If it wasn't, why not just force them to cover everything at no cost? Oh, wait you say, people have to get paid for those products/services? Jesus Christ what a moron. And after THAT little gem you harp about critical thinking and reason lol
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/publi…
Notice anything? Dan or one of his minions writes that shit every week. This is not a Very Serious Newspaper. Some headlines should not be read COMPLETELY literally.
Specifically, "The War on Men" should not be read with the imaginary subheadline "So much more important than the war on women."
It's pretty explicit in the post that Dan's message is: "Hey boys, you know that culture war in which women are the cannon fodder? Well, you're hiding behind those women right now, and as they go down, you're going to start taking a little fire. So step up and support them before it's too late."
What the fuck is wrong with that?
"But trying to force women to pay to punish them for their sex lives"
WHAT??? How is not getting shit for free a fucking punishment? Preventing access altogether, or having to pay 2x or 3x as much if your single vs. being married would be punishment. Having to pay what a Thing costs is what everyone else calls life.
They cannot just take aim at women and not hit men in the crossfire. I wish we humans were more protective. But sometimes we become so insulated that we need to realize that we're in the line of fire, too. That is all this post is really about. A warning to any guy who isn't angered for his: mother, sister, aunt, niece, daughter, first cousin, second cousin, first cousin once removed, friend, fruit fly, et cetera, because your in the crosshairs and they want to control your sexual freedom too.
So let's not dismiss our allies. And, allies thank you for your support and your empathy. Understandably we are scared for ourselves and all the women in our lives. Please keep standing with us.
To make an analogy: you don't walk into an optometrist's office and say "gimme glasses." You have your eyes examined every year or two to determine whether the prescription you're currently using is still right for you. The amount of money a person spends on vision correction thus includes the cost of these ongoing exams, not just the manufacturing costs of a new pair of glasses or contacts.
In any event: I notice you've continued to evade the question of expenses. Again: the median woman makes $37K, the average expenses for rent, food, transportation, and tax add up to $36K. Whether birth control costs $1000 per year or $600 per year, it's still a non-trivial expense for the average woman. Are you honestly suggesting that she should move into a crappier neighborhood, or have less reliable transportation, just to be able to afford birth control? A sacrifice that most men do not have to make, since most men do not pay for their partner's birth control (and have much more discretionary income to boot)?
Of course they don't - I know all of this and don't disagree with any of it. My point was that none of my partners, nor anyone I've ever heard of, has made a special trip to the OB/GYN for that purpose alone. Usually it's coupled with the annual (or however often, if things are more complicated) visit to the OB/GYN that they would be making ANYWAY.
"Again: the median woman makes $37K, the average expenses for rent, food, transportation, and tax add up to $36K."
I'm curious as to where you got these figures. Not calling you a liar, I'd just like to see them. And even assuming they are accurate, in annual expenses of $36k there's room to prioritize. One can save, say, $600/year pretty easily in a budget that size, given that that amounts to less than two percent of $37k of income. And I don't mean moving to a crappier neighborhood or giving up a car - things like eating out a little less often would suffice.
For the record, I've managed to live pretty comfortably in a decent neighborhood in Seattle (not the cheapest place to live) on less than $30k per year. That includes things like car payments and luxuries like season tickets for football games.
And since we're on the topic - men, if you're regularly boinking a woman you'd best be chipping in for her birth control. Really not cool if you aren't.
There are TONS of examples of this that have nothing to do with sexual morality. Lots of insurance doesn't pay for inpatient substance abuse treatment, for example. Chiropractors are another one. Both fully legal, both frequently not covered. We gonna mandate those too?
Leave them to their devices. They have a revolution to fight and lose.