Feb 6, 2016
commented on Police Reports Illustrated: A Man with a Badge Stops a Woman Leaving a Grocery Store and Accuses Her of Shoplifting
I'm surprised that so many people are talking about her being either dumb or overly compliant to authority when the third option was so obvious to me. My first impression (later confirmed by the commenter who checked the police report) was that she gave up the groceries and cards/PINs because she was afraid of violence. It was only when he made it clear that he would escalate to violence anyway ("Now we're going to your house") that she took the risk of calling his bluff.
This is a reality of how women and men interact with each other: sometimes women go along with shit because sometimes men respond violently to being called out.
And if she was black, she had another reason to comply with obvious bullshit; even if he were a real cop, refusing to comply could have ended up with her being dead.
@8 The demands for groceries/phone/credit card meant she would lose material possessions. The demand to go to her house meant she would be assaulted. Of course she was more concerned about the latter.
Jul 7, 2013
commented on Slog Bible Study: 2 Samuel 13:10-15
@23: Ugh, I remember that sermon too. May I ask what denomination you were? I was going to a Reformed Presbyterian church (Calvinist and very sexist) as a teenager and I still remember the preacher pausing to say, "Listen, young women, listen!" before reading the verse about Ammon hating Tamar after raping her. Then going on to say that if you let a guy fuck you, he isn't going to love you after. Although I had no feminist vocabulary at the time, even then I realized that this interpretation was fucked up... Tamar didn't let him fuck her! She was raped!
If there is a moral to this story, it's that even your relatives and other people that you know are Schroedinger's rapists.
Feb 4, 2013
commented on Certain Scientists: Women Who Use Birth Control Are Walking Graveyards
@40 - Well, there is such a thing as a calcified fetus (AKA "stone baby") being retained indefinitely in a woman's body after its demise. There's a Wikipedia article about it. It's very rare, though, and only happens with ectopic pregnancies, so nothing to do with wombs or birth control pills. But if there is a tiny bit of truth that this guy's bullshit is inspired by, maybe that's it.
Jan 31, 2012
commented on A Mother's Crusade to Remove Hardcore Pornography from the Middle of Seattle Libraries
Another member of team Fnarf here. Also, a member of team everybody who pointed out that displaying porn in public creates a hostile environment for women too, not just kids.
Rhizome asked at 183:
"No one on this thread who is coming out for censorship has addressed at all how one is supposed to be making a distinction. Perhaps because that is just a little problematic? Sounds perfectly reasonable to be banning 'perverts' who are looking at 'graphic porn' until you ponder for six seconds that whoever is making the distinction about who is a pervert and what constitutes 'graphic porn' would quite possibly not be so reasonable."
Personally, I'd be happy to leave the definition of graphic porn to the librarians' discretion. Librarians are educated, thinking people who value free expression, and I feel that I could trust them to make a reasonable judgment the vast majority of the time. I wouldn't trust Seattle Blues to make the call, true, but he's not a librarian. He doesn't even rhyme with one.
Oct 17, 2011
commented on Bishop Romney Tried to Force a Woman to Go Forward With a Risky Pregnancy
@8, 11, and others:
In my misspent youth I was a pro-lifer who made an exception for rape (and hazardous pregnancy), and this is what I wrote at one point about your question.
(This is FYI - I'm not going to come back and defend my argument below, because I'm now completely pro-choice).
By the 2000 version of rhymeswithlibrarian:
"I think that the question of abortion is truly a dilemma. The foundation of the pro-choice argument is that a fetus is part of a woman's body, and therefore her own to control. The foundation of the anti-abortion argument is that a fetus is a person in his/her own right, and therefore has a right to life.
The dilemma comes with the paradox that is pregnancy: the fetus is BOTH part of the woman's body, and a body of its own. Therefore a woman has the legitimate right to decide what to do with her womb and its contents, AND a fetus has the legitimate right to be live and to be legally protected from violence.
So how do we deal with this dilemma, where two equally legitimate rights are in conflict? I think the best way is to examine how the two parties got into this dilemma in the first place. A fetus' role in an unwanted pregnancy is always involuntary; he or she did not choose to be conceived. On the other hand, a woman GENERALLY (I will address exceptions below) enters this dilemma voluntarily, by choosing to have sex knowing that it might result in pregnancy and what pregnancy would involve.
So it seems to me that although an unwanted pregnancy presents a conflict between equally legitimate rights, since the woman entered this conflict voluntarily and the fetus involuntarily, the fetus' rights should have priority in most cases. So I am pro-life in ordinary situations.
When I said that a woman enters an unwanted pregnancy "voluntarily", I mean that she chooses to have sex, knowing that it might result in pregnancy and what pregnancy is likely to involve. Of course there are a number of scenarios where this would not apply. If she were pregnant as a result of rape or incest, then the "choosing to have sex" part wouldn't apply. If she were a very young girl or had a mental disability or illness, then the "knowing it might result in pregnancy" part wouldn't apply. And if continuing the pregnancy had extraordinary health risks, then the "knowing what pregnancy is likely to involve" part wouldn't apply. So in these exceptional situations, I think that the woman's right to control her own body should take precedence. "
Sep 17, 2011
commented on Bachmann Continues Her Brave Fight Against Vaccination
6 and 33 are on to something: maybe she isn't trying to coin "Perrycare". Maybe she's actually opposed to pericare. After all, if your genitals are clean, you're more likely to think that it's OK to have sex.
Makes just as much sense as opposing the HPV vaccine, doesn't it?
Jun 29, 2011
commented on "Ten Rape Prevention Tips"
I wouldn't call the list of tips a joke, but it's not meant literally as a message to potential rapists either.
It's joke-like in that it uses a clever twist - the title makes you assume that it's advice for potential victims, so you're surprised to find advice for potential rapists. The brief confusion you feel will then - hopefully - make you think about WHY you assumed it would be addressing victims.
There's a tendency to talk about rape as if it's just something that happens, like an earthquake, so all you can do is be prepared. But rape isn't something that happens - it's something that rapists do. Every rape is the result of a decision made by a rapist - not the result of a decision made by a victim. So, why do we focus on the victims, rather than the rapists, when we talk about preventing rape?
Reminds me of a Golda Meir quote, when someone in the Israeli government proposed responding to an increase in rapes by putting a curfew on women. She said something like, "But it's the men who are raping the women. If anyone's to be put on a curfew, it should be men."