Is There a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

[Laerod]

Well, I don't think that this would have cut it in December 1941. "While I am concerned about the attack on the United States currently going on, I hesitate to call it a war."

I can't see any logical conclusion to this concerted effort to strip women of rights other than women having no rights and becoming human property. This has to be the direction they want to take us in, because it's the end point of the destruction of legal due process and the passage of laws stripping women of right after right.

I can't see these types being satisfied with destroying a woman's right to equal pay, abortion, and the vote any more than I could see Hitler saying "Just the Saarland will be fine, thanks."

That's the problem though, do you HAVE anything that says that what they want is for "women (to) have (sic) no rights and become human property"?

That's the problem with using the phrase war. War invokes a motivation of destruction, or hatred; I honestly do not see any one on the right calling for the destruction of women. In other words, their motivation, seriously misguided as it may be, is not leading towards that.

This, of course, does NOT mean that there isn't an attack on women's reproductive rights, it's just that I hesitate to assign a motivation of destruction without some rather large proof.

Well, for one, there's the issue of "war":

war
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

Then there's the matter of proof:

Is there a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

Is it really a war on women when subsidies from a going-broke government are considered for reduction or elimination? (My health insurance doesn't cover viagra, so are they attacking my wife through me?)

Is it really a war on women when, because of national economic policies, after the initial loss of traditionally male jobs, that the market would eventualy lose of female jobs?

Don't you just want to laugh at political spin? http://gawker.com/5901621/the-gop-flips-the-war-on-women-script-and-stephen-colbert-is-loving-it

I think the War on Women is about as real as the World of Warcraft.

Okay, let's see... Why is it they are trying to "reduce subsidies" as you put it? Let's ask Santorum:

I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of a human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and — artificial birth control — again, I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that.... I think it breaks that … this is from a personal point of view. From a governmental point of view, I support Title 10 (I guess it is) and have voted for contraception — although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think it has it has — and we’ve seen — very, very harmful long-term consequences to a society. So, birth control — to me — enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.

This is an attack on women and their right not to live their lives as Santorum and his ideological bretheren want. And that's all it ever was.

They've gone out and said it. The whole thing is a concerted effort to remove the sexual liberation women have enjoyed since the advent of safe abortions and birth control. For some the aim might genuinely be less promiscuity, but the means are maximizing the risks of having sex. For women, mind you.

[Laerod]

Furthermore, there's a serious dominionist movement that believes in the dominance of the male in a household. Purity balls are pretty good example of this:

Purity Balls have been criticized to deliver the message that a girl and her virginity are like property to be dominated by men. They give the idea that a female is not capable of controlling her desires, and so another must be kept in charge of them. Writer and feminist Eve Ensler criticizes purity balls for implying that fathers, rather than young women themselves, ought to have the freedom to control whether and with whom the young women engage in sexual relations. The daughter is the fathers property when she is promised, and then becomes her husbands property after marriage. The father demotes his daughter by making her a present to be consummated by her future husband.

They seem to have noticed that they can milk this, so the Purity Ball site no longer seems to show the pledge itself, but sells you a binder for $100.

[Demen 2]

There is a general war on the people here. Freedoms being erased, rights being infringed upon again and again.



Then again, if you can't see that, or you would like to instead say it's only against women, go ahead.

[Inexplicability]

There is a general war on the people here. Freedoms being erased, rights being infringed upon again and again.



Then again, if you can't see that, or you would like to instead say it's only against women, go ahead.

When did anyone say it was only against women? Just discussing a particular issue doesn't mean that other issues don't exist.

[NERVUN]

That's the problem though, do you HAVE anything that says that what they want is for "women (to) have (sic) no rights and become human property"?

That's the problem with using the phrase war. War invokes a motivation of destruction, or hatred; I honestly do not see any one on the right calling for the destruction of women. In other words, their motivation, seriously misguided as it may be, is not leading towards that.

This, of course, does NOT mean that there isn't an attack on women's reproductive rights, it's just that I hesitate to assign a motivation of destruction without some rather large proof.

Well, for one, there's the issue of "war":

war
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

Alright, now show me active hostility towards women.

Then there's the matter of proof:

Okay, let's see... Why is it they are trying to "reduce subsidies" as you put it? Let's ask Santorum:


This is an attack on women and their right not to live their lives as Santorum and his ideological bretheren want. And that's all it ever was.

They've gone out and said it. The whole thing is a concerted effort to remove the sexual liberation women have enjoyed since the advent of safe abortions and birth control. For some the aim might genuinely be less promiscuity, but the means are maximizing the risks of having sex. For women, mind you.

To Santorum who is... what, exactly?

And is sexual liberation ALL that women are?

Or to flip the problem around for a second (Because there's another thread on it), ARE there very outspoken atheists who are actively hostile towards religion and who truly hold the belief that religion, is wrong, evil, and must be eradicated? Yes, yes there are. Do they do stupid things? Yes they do. Is there, then, a war on religion in the US? No. Because one lunatic does not the whole make, and the motivations for all can be quite different from one, or a few, extremists.

And in the usual election year pandering and you have a situation where I wonder just how much of this is the normal sound and fury designed to win primaries that will be very quickly dropped in the general.

Again though, this does not mean there are outright attacks on women's reproductive rights that are of much concern in various areas. Assigning a term such as war, invoking an all out attempt to destroy women however... It's a spin term, and one that I am not quite sure functions well. Yes, it has rallied women, and brought in money, but like the 'War on Religion', it also can be used by the opposition to rally THEIR base, which has happened.

And in the middle of the spin war, the very real problems of these laws and proposals are being burred.

[Tahar Joblis]

And child support is owed to the children, not the custodial parent.

Child support is paid to the accounts of the custodial parent and disposed of by the custodial parent.

[Laerod]

Well, for one, there's the issue of "war":

Alright, now show me active hostility towards women.

Then there's the matter of proof:

They've gone out and said it. The whole thing is a concerted effort to remove the sexual liberation women have enjoyed since the advent of safe abortions and birth control. For some the aim might genuinely be less promiscuity, but the means are maximizing the risks of having sex. For women, mind you.

To Santorum who is... what, exactly?

And is sexual liberation ALL that women are?

Or to flip the problem around for a second (Because there's another thread on it), ARE there very outspoken atheists who are actively hostile towards religion and who truly hold the belief that religion, is wrong, evil, and must be eradicated? Yes, yes there are. Do they do stupid things? Yes they do. Is there, then, a war on religion in the US? No. Because one lunatic does not the whole make, and the motivations for all can be quite different from one, or a few, extremists.

Here's the thing though, those atheists in the threads or even those in the real world are not presidential primary candidates that manage to win several states decisively, they don't do anything like convening panels on women's healthcare without inviting a single woman, investigating Planned Parenthood so that other organizations that have been infiltrated by anti-abortionists can defund them based on the fact that they're being investigated, setting up as many hurdles to getting a safe abortion as they can across several states... In New Hampshire they argued that the pill should be banned among other reasons because it gives men prostate cancer.

And that's really just the beginning. This is the political movement that brought us the wedge strategy for eliminating evolution. The whole idea is to get a foot in the door and then force it open bit by bit by bit. I linked a bit about purity balls earlier. It's one of many aspects of how the idea that women must be submissive to their fathers and then husbands is deeply ingrained in the evangelical culture.

And if you want to see to what lengths these people will go, look at Uganda. Turning homosexuality into a capital offense was in part brought about by extensive lobbying by American evangelicals. Unlike the crazy atheists, these guys really do hurt people.

And in the usual election year pandering and you have a situation where I wonder just how much of this is the normal sound and fury designed to win primaries that will be very quickly dropped in the general.

I can see the Democrats dropping this after the election, but the Republicans have the Tea Party. We saw how dedicated these people are when it comes to doing what they want during the crisis regarding the raising of the spending ceiling. The Republicans might be less vocal about it after the election, but the concerted effort to roll back sexual freedoms both real and perceived started with the 2010 midterms. This isn't something that'll go away even if the Democrats start ignoring it once they no longer have to rally women to Obama.

Again though, this does not mean there are outright attacks on women's reproductive rights that are of much concern in various areas. Assigning a term such as war, invoking an all out attempt to destroy women however... It's a spin term, and one that I am not quite sure functions well. Yes, it has rallied women, and brought in money, but like the 'War on Religion', it also can be used by the opposition to rally THEIR base, which has happened.

And in the middle of the spin war, the very real problems of these laws and proposals are being burred.

Yeah, "war" is a spin term. But unlike the bullshit about Christmas, religion, or whatnot, this one has real battles and real victims.

[NERVUN]

Alright, now show me active hostility towards women.

To Santorum who is... what, exactly?

And is sexual liberation ALL that women are?

Or to flip the problem around for a second (Because there's another thread on it), ARE there very outspoken atheists who are actively hostile towards religion and who truly hold the belief that religion, is wrong, evil, and must be eradicated? Yes, yes there are. Do they do stupid things? Yes they do. Is there, then, a war on religion in the US? No. Because one lunatic does not the whole make, and the motivations for all can be quite different from one, or a few, extremists.

Here's the thing though, those atheists in the threads or even those in the real world are not presidential primary candidates that manage to win several states decisively, they don't do anything like convening panels on women's healthcare without inviting a single woman, investigating Planned Parenthood so that other organizations that have been infiltrated by anti-abortionists can defund them based on the fact that they're being investigated, setting up as many hurdles to getting a safe abortion as they can across several states... In New Hampshire they argued that the pill should be banned among other reasons because it gives men prostate cancer.

No, they're in the courts suing people... Again though, we're talking the noisemakers, the loud wingnuts. And yes, Santorum won a few states, he is not the one the GOP mainstream voted for and is running now is he? I admit that news can be slow and Japan's news gets US presidential politics garbled, but I'm fairly sure that Santorum is not longer in the race.

And that's really just the beginning. This is the political movement that brought us the wedge strategy for eliminating evolution. The whole idea is to get a foot in the door and then force it open bit by bit by bit. I linked a bit about purity balls earlier. It's one of many aspects of how the idea that women must be submissive to their fathers and then husbands is deeply ingrained in the evangelical culture.

Which make up a grand total of 23% of the population.

Now how popular are the purity balls?

And if you want to see to what lengths these people will go, look at Uganda. Turning homosexuality into a capital offense was in part brought about by extensive lobbying by American evangelicals. Unlike the crazy atheists, these guys really do hurt people.

Three, and that claim is slightly questionable.

But in any case, could you point me to the GOP platform plank that is calling for the enslavement of women?

And in the usual election year pandering and you have a situation where I wonder just how much of this is the normal sound and fury designed to win primaries that will be very quickly dropped in the general.

I can see the Democrats dropping this after the election, but the Republicans have the Tea Party. We saw how dedicated these people are when it comes to doing what they want during the crisis regarding the raising of the spending ceiling. The Republicans might be less vocal about it after the election, but the concerted effort to roll back sexual freedoms both real and perceived started with the 2010 midterms. This isn't something that'll go away even if the Democrats start ignoring it once they no longer have to rally women to Obama.

Yeah, let's talk the Tea Party for a second. Now, I seem to recall that the braying and the howls of the 2010 midterm election was "SLASH THE DEBT!" and "REPEAL AND REPLACE!" and how that would be job 1 when they took the House.

So how's that going?

Again though, this does not mean there are outright attacks on women's reproductive rights that are of much concern in various areas. Assigning a term such as war, invoking an all out attempt to destroy women however... It's a spin term, and one that I am not quite sure functions well. Yes, it has rallied women, and brought in money, but like the 'War on Religion', it also can be used by the opposition to rally THEIR base, which has happened.

And in the middle of the spin war, the very real problems of these laws and proposals are being burred.

Yeah, "war" is a spin term. But unlike the bullshit about Christmas, religion, or whatnot, this one has real battles and real victims.

Indeed, and by trying to overplay the hand, I feel that they are being forgotten.

[Dempublicents1]

That's the problem though, do you HAVE anything that says that what they want is for "women (to) have (sic) no rights and become human property"?

That's the problem with using the phrase war. War invokes a motivation of destruction, or hatred; I honestly do not see any one on the right calling for the destruction of women. In other words, their motivation, seriously misguided as it may be, is not leading towards that.

This, of course, does NOT mean that there isn't an attack on women's reproductive rights, it's just that I hesitate to assign a motivation of destruction without some rather large proof.

I am curious as to why you are focusing exclusively on the attacks on reproductive freedom. There are also moves to do away with legal measures meant to prevent discrimination against women in the workplace and to help guarantee them equal pay for equal work. There are also moves like the one in GA where they take crimes in which women are statistically more likely to be the victims (rape and stalking, for instance), and systematically undermine their position by deciding that these crimes (and these crimes alone), shall have the alleged victim referred to as the "accuser", rather than the victim.

The GOP isn't restricting itself to attacking reproductive freedoms.

[NERVUN]

That's the problem though, do you HAVE anything that says that what they want is for "women (to) have (sic) no rights and become human property"?

That's the problem with using the phrase war. War invokes a motivation of destruction, or hatred; I honestly do not see any one on the right calling for the destruction of women. In other words, their motivation, seriously misguided as it may be, is not leading towards that.

This, of course, does NOT mean that there isn't an attack on women's reproductive rights, it's just that I hesitate to assign a motivation of destruction without some rather large proof.

I am curious as to why you are focusing exclusively on the attacks on reproductive freedom. There are also moves to do away with legal measures meant to prevent discrimination against women in the workplace and to help guarantee them equal pay for equal work. There are also moves like the one in GA where they take crimes in which women are statistically more likely to be the victims (rape and stalking, for instance), and systematically undermine their position by deciding that these crimes (and these crimes alone), shall have the alleged victim referred to as the "accuser", rather than the victim.

The GOP isn't restricting itself to attacking reproductive freedoms.

5,000 km away, sometimes the news doesn't get here.

In all seriousness, the uproar from how I understand it based upon the national news was started with Rush's slut comment and has been mostly over contraceptives. I'm not aware of other issues that were being spun as the War on Women.

[Dempublicents1]

5,000 km away, sometimes the news doesn't get here.

In all seriousness, the uproar from how I understand it based upon the national news was started with Rush's slut comment and has been mostly over contraceptives. I'm not aware of other issues that were being spun as the War on Women.

Ah. No, it didn't begin with Rush. Not by a long-shot. It didn't even begin this year. It's really been ramping up since the 2010 elections. It just seems to have gotten worse now that we're back in an election year.

[Tahar Joblis]

5,000 km away, sometimes the news doesn't get here.

In all seriousness, the uproar from how I understand it based upon the national news was started with Rush's slut comment and has been mostly over contraceptives. I'm not aware of other issues that were being spun as the War on Women.

Ah. No, it didn't begin with Rush. Not by a long-shot. It didn't even begin this year. It's really been ramping up since the 2010 elections. It just seems to have gotten worse now that we're back in an election year.

Do you know why it's been ramping up since the 2010 elections?

Because a bunch of dumbasses stayed home and let the Republicans gain control of the US House, control over both legislatures in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, North Carolina, Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (the first five of those had been wholly Democratic), 12 previously Democratic governorships [for a net gain of +6, since they lost six Republican governors - moderate Republican governors, mostly, in Democratic states, like Hawaii and California], and several additional state chambers.

This dramatically improved the ability of people who are opposed to abortion to propose and pass laws related to those issues.

[Nadkor]

Quick poll update:

Of the 142 men that responded to the gender-split poll, 67 (~47.2%) responded that they believe there is a war on women in the US, 56 (~39.4%)reported they do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 19 (~13.4%) responded that they are unsure/do not know.

Of the 24 women who responded to the poll, 14 (~58.3%) responded that they believe there is a war on women in the US, 5 (20.8%) reported they do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 5 (20.8%) responded that they are unsure/do not know.

Out of the total number (166) of respondents, 48% believe there is a war on women in the US, 37% do not believe there is a war on women in the US, and 14% are unsure.

The interesting thing about this being that if we lump the "do not know" votes in with the "no" votes, we get a split of roughly 48%/51%, contrasted by the 46%/54% split in this thread. Which, as noted previously suggests strongly that the poll in this thread suffers negatively for the lack of a "do not know" option in reflecting the views of the general NSG population.

Or to look at it a different way, when given "agree", "not sure", and "disagree" options:
- 39.4% of men polled disagree that there is a war on women in the USA
- 20.8% of women polled disagree that there is a war on women in the USA

Which means that
- 60.6% of men polled either agree that there is a war on women in the USA or cannot say with a reasonable degree of certainty that there is not.
- 79.2% of women polled either agree that there is a war on women in the USA or cannot say with a reasonable degree of certainty that there is not.

[Anacasppia]

I wouldn't exactly say there is one, but sexism seems to be on the rise, or at least that's what I'd think.

[Wikkiwallana]

I am curious as to why you are focusing exclusively on the attacks on reproductive freedom. There are also moves to do away with legal measures meant to prevent discrimination against women in the workplace and to help guarantee them equal pay for equal work. There are also moves like the one in GA where they take crimes in which women are statistically more likely to be the victims (rape and stalking, for instance), and systematically undermine their position by deciding that these crimes (and these crimes alone), shall have the alleged victim referred to as the "accuser", rather than the victim.

The GOP isn't restricting itself to attacking reproductive freedoms.

5,000 km away, sometimes the news doesn't get here.

In all seriousness, the uproar from how I understand it based upon the national news was started with Rush's slut comment and has been mostly over contraceptives. I'm not aware of other issues that were being spun as the War on Women.

This should catch you up, slightly NSFW.

[Eadesiopia]

I'm gonna weigh in again here, and I'm not going to get involved in the american politics bit because frankly I'm not american, so I don't follow it, and this is just my personal beliefs from my own experiences thus far.

Also I should state I use the term "feminist" a lot in this. I want to clarify this straight off. I am not refering to you sane feminists. I know thats the majority of you, wanting to be treated equally is not a problem. I'm refering to the strange "you were born with a penis therefore everything you say do think and feel offends me and oppresses me as a woman" I know that these feminists are fairly few among you, but they're the most vocal and from talking to a few of the, as I call them "sane" feminists. You sane gals seem to find them irritating too. Anyway onwards. And yes I know somebody is bound to pick this apart and insult my opinions, if that's what makes you feel better, good for you.

There are areas where women have more rights than men, and areas where men have more than women.

First my opinion on abortion. Yes I agree that some people find the idea horrid, they consider it ending a life, and that's fine for them. But what about the young woman who was raped? Or the lovestruck teens who got a little drunk and didn't use contraception.

If they don't think they can handle the child, they have several options. Put them up for adoption, this has the stress of "was it the right thing to do" or the worry that in the future they might seek you out, what do you tell them? You didn't want a child, you weren't ready. What if you have other children not much younger than them because you decided after giving them away "aww I want one" for many adoption is too tough a decision to make.

Option two, raise the child. This can lead to issues also, yes the child may grow up in a loving family, but the odds of an accidental pregnancy turning into a loving family aren't amazingly high. Some parents can barely afford to look after themselves let alone a child, they may have dreams or aspirations which get stopped, and that might lead to them resenting the child.

Option three, an abortion. While options one and two are a gamble, option three is a safe bet, you won't have the child. Its a short term emotional problem for many, but longer term it isn't so bad although there are women who may never get over it afterwards.

People who are prolife should realise that, although they're saving a life, they're potentially ruining several. And I'm including the child here.

I'm pro choice, pro lifers go ahead, have your bastard children and I hope you raise them well and have the means to do so. But for some people they just aren't ready.

I would however say that, women who have abortions should be given psychological help. Both an assessment of their circumstances beforehand, and to cope afterwards if they do have any emotional distress.

---

Next up, workplace rights. This is what annoys me, because its often the bits you see the loud feminists bring up. Yes in some positions there are discrepancies in the male vs female roles, upper management for example. And I'm not going to say its the same in every company, there are bound to be some that do overlook women because they're women. But there are others who overlook them because they aren't men.

Let me explain my belief here. Speaking from working in an office role at present. We have lots of meetings, we have lots of managers, we have a fair few women employees where I work, most of them are still on the lower rungs though.

This isn't because they're kept down because they're women, but because they don't put the effort in to go up. And no before anyone says it, i'm not saying women aren't hard workers. They are, they're damned hard workers, that's the problem though.

A lot of women focus on the work, they do the work, they do it well, but they don't get themselves noticed. The women I've seen are... I guess humble isn't the best word for it, but its the only one that comes to mind at the moment. They'll do the work, submit it and that's it. Most of the men who work will do the work, hand it in and then go on about how "oh I did this, I did that. I've collated the latest documents" when it isn't an I at all, half the time it's more a case of "I went round and ask fred to do this, bill to do this, and then put the results together."

But because they go around and say they did all this extra work and make a point of it, they get noticed, while the women do just the same, but don't really bring attention to it.

I think its also the reason why the women who do take responsibility and get themselves noticed shoot up the ladder so quickly. Because when a man says "I did this, I did that" its just a guy talking. When a girl does it its "holy shit, she did all that? None of the other girls are doing that, she must be freakin' good"

I've also noticed this, and don't quote me but I remember seeing a survey on msn (i think) a few months back stating that, a lot of women in professional roles don't even want to advance. I'm not saying all, but it was one of those, they survey men and women. It was something like 90% of men said they wanted to advance up the ladder. While it was only 40-50% of women who gave the same answer.

---

Fields of industry.

There are certain fields of industry i've noticed on a couple news paper articals feminists moan about. Things like building / electrical or ICT.

The truth is, the reason these jobs have hardly any women, is because hardly any women go on these jobs. I mentioned this earlier and got the response of "Well its the attitude of the men on those jobs that stops them applying"

But its still a case of they aren't applying. They aren't doing the courses. If you don't learn you get qualifications you don't get the job simple as that. Most women i know who've taken these courses have only taken them to have the basic understanding for home DIY a lot of them have no interest in getting a job in one of those fields. Or very little.

Yes there are women who do take these courses, and i'm sure they probably do deal with a lot of shit because its a "mans job" but at the same time, that isn't going to change unless more make the effort to get these jobs.

---

The flipside of this is areas where women have greater rights than men. However trivial some of these may be, some are quite extreme. the main extreme is are the first two i'll mention in brief.

1: Child Support

Lets just say the system in the UK is completely fubar. Background first, the area I live in to rent out a small 1 bedroom house would cost you around £350 per month (its a holiday town), the average persons pay after tax (i'm talking normal 9-5 just over min wage) would pay you in the region of £1000 a month.

A man I know, who loves his children very much, but isn't on best terms with his wife has to pay £700 a month in child support. I'm sure you can do the maths. The saddest part is for a while he was almost suicidal over it. He was almost never allowed to see his kids by his ex-wife. And if he ever did see them he couldn't do anything because he had no money. He called up lawyers asked for advice and they all come back with the same thing. The CSA will not budge ever, and there is no point taking it to court, because the CSA always wins. In the end he had to ask his employer to make him redundant because it was the only way for him to lower his child support costs.

2: Child custody.

Another person I know. Lets just say his wife is a psycho. I'm not even joking here. His mother is disabled, she can barely move or stand up. Short story. The ex-wife wanted to go out drinking, so she called the ex-husband to tell him he has to take the child for the night. Argued for a while but he agreed, drove up took him home with him. Later that night the ex-wife was at the door shouting and screaming that she wanted her child back. When the husbands pretty much disabled mother opened the door, she stormed in and grabbed the child by the neck and tried to drag him out. When the childs grandmother tried to stop her, she pushed her over and then bit her. The police had to take her away.

She was ordered by the courts not to tell the children about her new fiance, this was a week after the divorce, her response "tough, already told them."

She defrauded the council by claiming that she was taking care of both children full time, not one of the two children part time. She now owes them over several grand.

The child she takes care of often goes hungry because she wastes the money on cigarettes for her fiance.

During the marriage she cheated on her husband several times, and threatened to kill herself if she didn't get her way. (the actually divorced once before, but then remarried because she said she'd kill herself if he didn't get back with her)

Despite this, and all the evidence to back it up. She still has custody of the child, a child who she doesn't even care for. She only wants the kid for the child support and because its a tool to use against her husband, because unlike her he actually loves the kid. I've known both the husband and wife (as they're relatives of friends of mine) for many years. She has been very unstable for many years (i'm pretty sure she's on meds for it, can't remember)

How is that a fair system? And I know you may think this could be an isolated case, but its happened to many dads in the UK (look up dads for justice)

And now the pointless one

Womens classes. If you have male only classes at a gym, or swimming session or anything its sexist they aren't allowed to do it. Likewise if you advertise as looking for a man for a common job. (say serving tables) and yet its perfectly fine to have women only classes, and advertise jobs just for women (waitressing)

I bring this up mostly because I really wanna try out Yoga, but the classes I went to I got such dirty looks from the girls I just didn't want to go back. If they can have women only classes I should be allowed male only ones *sulks*

---

I will agree that in some areas men have greater rights than women, but women have to accept that in others they have far more rights than men.

Are men trying to strip women of their rights? Well, men are most vocal about it yes, but if you look at a lot of these "pro-life" rallies you'll tend to see quite a few women there also. As for the other areas, its still being battered out. Women have more rights in one area, men have more in another. They try to give the men more rights to keep up and the feminists complain. they try to take certain bits away from women, and the feminists complain. Its a lose lose because of a small minority who won't shut up.

[Forsakia]

First my opinion on abortion. Yes I agree that some people find the idea horrid, they consider it ending a life, and that's fine for them. But what about the young woman who was raped? Or the lovestruck teens who got a little drunk and didn't use contraception.

If they don't think they can handle the child, they have several options. Put them up for adoption, this has the stress of "was it the right thing to do" or the worry that in the future they might seek you out, what do you tell them? You didn't want a child, you weren't ready. What if you have other children not much younger than them because you decided after giving them away "aww I want one" for many adoption is too tough a decision to make.

Option two, raise the child. This can lead to issues also, yes the child may grow up in a loving family, but the odds of an accidental pregnancy turning into a loving family aren't amazingly high. Some parents can barely afford to look after themselves let alone a child, they may have dreams or aspirations which get stopped, and that might lead to them resenting the child.

Option three, an abortion. While options one and two are a gamble, option three is a safe bet, you won't have the child. Its a short term emotional problem for many, but longer term it isn't so bad although there are women who may never get over it afterwards.

People who are prolife should realise that, although they're saving a life, they're potentially ruining several. And I'm including the child here.

[/quote]

The thing is, here they're being quite logical (and tbh I find it hard to get angry at them about, or properly count it as anti-women). If you believe life begins at conception then the foetus is a child and abortion is murder and you can't justify murder by any other means, by saying that not murdering someone would 'ruin several lives' doesn't cut it.

I don't agree that life begins at conception, but it's hardly a ridiculous place to put the line and once you've put it there then an anti-abortion stance is the logical step.

What's really hard to justify is no abortion except for rape because well, surely it's either murder (and hence unjustifiable even with rape) or it isn't. The internal logic is hard to see.

The only way you can sort of do it that I can come up with is the argument that it wouldn't be murder but consent to sex is consent to pregnancy so that it's unjustifiable except in rape due to the obvious lack of consent. But it takes some logical gymnastics to get there.

[Oliver the Mediocre]

In all seriousness, the uproar from how I understand it based upon the national news was started with Rush's slut comment and has been mostly over contraceptives. I'm not aware of other issues that were being spun as the War on Women.

Ehhhhhh... largely about reproductive/health issues, but not entirely about contraception (unless you consider abortion to be contraception). We're also hearing lots about pay inequality and related issues of inequality. I'm not American but I can see it from my porch (while that is a Sarah Palin reference, it's also true, I live in a border town).

[The Congregationists]

Ah. No, it didn't begin with Rush. Not by a long-shot. It didn't even begin this year. It's really been ramping up since the 2010 elections. It just seems to have gotten worse now that we're back in an election year.

Do you know why it's been ramping up since the 2010 elections?

Because a bunch of dumbasses stayed home and let the Republicans gain control of the US House, control over both legislatures in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, North Carolina, Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (the first five of those had been wholly Democratic), 12 previously Democratic governorships [for a net gain of +6, since they lost six Republican governors - moderate Republican governors, mostly, in Democratic states, like Hawaii and California], and several additional state chambers.

This dramatically improved the ability of people who are opposed to abortion to propose and pass laws related to those issues.

A big part of it is also that the economy is finally starting to show some signs of life, and the G.O.P can't run against that without seeming to be anti-recovery. So they're doing what they've always done: dusting off all these tried and true culture war tropes and using them as wedge issues to distract us from what the real business of running the country actually entails. Privatization and deregulation of essential economic services. Nationalization and regulation of personal, sexual matters.

You vote for this nonsense America. You have only yourselves to blame.

[Mehden]

I don't agree that life begins at conception,

Okay...

but it's hardly a ridiculous place to put the line and once you've put it there

Wait, what? If you don't believe that life beings at conception, how is it hardly a ridiculous place? If not for reasons faith-based, how is it anything but ridiculous?

then an anti-abortion stance is the logical step.

No!

mental gymnastics

Exactly.