The War on Women

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The War on Women

Postby Nordic » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:00 am

In this country the Supreme Court is perceived as above-the-fray, at least by the unwashed masses. They're considered non-partisan. Indeed, that is their role.

We happen to know better, but everybody else?
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Twyla LaSarc » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:44 am

There seems to be no thread for this incident so I will leave this here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1NU3F1.DTL

Oikos suspect 's trouble with women recalled

An unusual portrait emerged of Goh, with his nursing instructor saying that he was consumed by an inability to get along with women before he left the school a few months ago. The teacher, Romie Delariman of San Leandro, said Goh didn't fit in at a college where women make up the vast majority of the nursing faculty and student body.

Delariman said Goh - a former construction worker with a string of debts but no criminal record that would keep him from buying a gun - was a good and eager student. But he added, "He just can't deal with women ... I always advised him, 'You go to school to learn, not to make friends.'"


The background: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1NTM3Q.DTL

The huge majority of the people aimed at "systematically and randomly" (per the article) certainly had one thing in common, femaleness. Only one man was killed :
Goh killed his only male victim - Tshering Rinzing Bhutia, 38, of San Francisco - while carjacking his Honda Accord, police said. He drove several miles to a Safeway store in Alameda, where he allegedly told employees at the customer service desk, "I just shot some people."
“The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off”
User avatar
Twyla LaSarc
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: On the 8th hole
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Allegro » Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:53 am

.
See links in original. Referenced in the article below: Americans United for Life whose President is Charmaine Yoest, according to her Wiki, is or has been Vice President at Family Research Council.

Also, noted here, “In the Republican Gubernatorial run-off on August 10, 2010, Handel [Karen Handel who’s no longer employed by breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure] received the endorsement of former Republican 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Handel also received the endorsements of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.”

_________________
Jan Brewer signs ‘life begins at menstruation’ bill,
the most draconian anti-abortion law so far
— Daily Kos | by Meteor Blades
— Fri Apr 13, 2012 at 07:42 AM PDT

ImageArizona can now claim the nation’s worst assault on women’s reproductive rights so far.

      The law “disregards women’s health in a way I’ve never seen before,” said Center for Reproductive Rights’ state advocacy counsel, Jordan Goldberg. “The women of Arizona can’t access medical treatment that other women can.” [...]

      The fingerprints of policy group Americans United for Life are all over much of the bill’s language, according to Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. She says the legislation is a mishmash of parts of other states’ bills, and predicted that still other conservative states looking to restrict and discourage abortions will now look to Arizona’s bill as model legislation.

      “The point is to make it so difficult to provide abortions that no one will do it,” said Nash. “Arizona likes to thumb their nose at women. They take that as a badge of honor.”

    The life begins at menstruation law goes into effect in 90 days:

    • It sets the gestational age as beginning on the first day of a woman’s last period, rather than at fertilization. Which, in practice, means that a virgin can get pregnant and instead of barring abortions after 20 weeks as the law states, actually cuts the time to 18 weeks.

    • Medication abortions (by pill), usually done at home or a clinic within the first nine weeks of pregnancy, must now be done by a medical provider who has hospital privileges within 30 miles of where the procedure takes place. The law also mandates outdated protocol that Nash says may cause confusion. The provision is an attempt to shut down medication abortions altogether. North Dakota and Oklahoma are in litigation over similar provisions in their laws.

    • Sex education is not mandated in Arizona, but any such education must now prioritize birth and adoption.

    • Health-care facilities must put up signs warning against abortion “coercion.”

    • The state health department must set up a website focusing on alternatives to abortion and displaying photos of fetuses.

    • “Counseling” is required for women aiming seeking abortions because of fetal abnormalities. Such counseling must include perinatal hospice information.

    • Previous requirements are reiterated for a notarized parental consent form for minors and a mandatory ultrasound screening 24 hours before having an abortion.

    Planned Parenthood national president Gloria Feldt says Arizona has long had bad law regarding abortion, but the situation worsened when Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano became secretary of Homeland Security and Brewer took over. The Americans United for Life website says: “With the appointment of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, the Arizona legislature was finally able to capitalize on an opportunity to enact life-affirming legislation without fear of unwarranted veto.”

    But they tell us there is no war on women.
Art will be the last bastion when all else fades away.
~ Timothy White (b 1952), American rock music journalist
_________________
User avatar
Allegro
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:44 pm
Location: just right of Orion
Blog: View Blog (144)

Re: The War on Women

Postby crikkett » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:43 am

brekin wrote:The letter contrasts offensive things that Maher has said to describe his political opposites with insults Rush Limbaugh recently directed at Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke.

[/quote]

Well slap my face and call me silly, but Bill Maher isn't broadcast nationwide on AM radio for half the goddamned workday, he's just an asshole whose show, which bills itself as crude humor, is a single nighttime hour per week on a subscription channel.

They're trying to ignore fundamental problems: abuse of public airwaves and the protection of children's minds.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: The War on Women

Postby brekin » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:33 am

brekin wrote:
The letter contrasts offensive things that Maher has said to describe his political opposites with insults Rush Limbaugh recently directed at Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke.


crikket wrote:

Well slap my face and call me silly, but Bill Maher isn't broadcast nationwide on AM radio for half the goddamned workday, he's just an asshole whose show, which bills itself as crude humor, is a single nighttime hour per week on a subscription channel.
They're trying to ignore fundamental problems: abuse of public airwaves and the protection of children's minds.


I don't think lack of exposure minimizes Maher's actions. If anything his slot and format allows him to be much more cruder and demeaning then Rush.
They are both ass clowns, but it is easy to forget that its not just paleo-conservatives who demean Women.
I doubt most children are learning to demean women by listening to AM radio during the workday anyways, they listen
to FM radio for that.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Nordic » Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:06 pm

brekin wrote:I doubt most children are learning to demean women by listening to AM radio during the workday anyways, they listen
to FM radio for that.


You can learn to demean women in so many ways. By watching "The Bachelor" for instance.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The War on Women

Postby crikkett » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:20 pm

brekin: The point I was trying to make was that nothing Bill Maher does or ever can do excuses Rush Limbaugh's actions.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: The War on Women

Postby brekin » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:17 pm

crikkett wrote:
brekin: The point I was trying to make was that nothing Bill Maher does or ever can do excuses Rush Limbaugh's actions.


Yeah, I got that. I think they both suck. This isn't just a Dem vs Repub narrative though.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Simulist » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:37 pm

Raising Kids Is Work? Tell That to Women on Welfare
by Laura Flanders

For all the shameful sucking up to multimillionaire mom Ann Romney after Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen accused her of never having worked “a day in her life,” the reality is neither Republicans nor Democrats treat most parenting as work, and thousands of poor women are living in poverty today as living proof of that fact.

Do we need to state the obvious? Women of different classes are beaten with different rhetorical bats. For the college-educated and upwardly aspiring, there’s the “danger” of career ambitions. Ever since women started aspiring to have men’s jobs, backlashers have told those women that they’re enjoying their careers at the expense of their kids’ well being. They really can’t have it all. They’ll raise monsters, or worse, they’ll grow old on the shelf. Remember the Harvard/Yale mob that made headlines with a “study” showing that unmarried women over thirty had a slimmer chance of matrimony than they had of being taken out by a terrorist? Susan Faludi took them apart in Backlash! But the evil spawn of that story still circulate. The media still love stories about stay-at-home moms and professional women are still punished for wanting to succeed. For the poor, though, it’s very different.

Following Rosen’s remark, Ann Romney tweeted her first tweet: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.” Her husband’s campaign hoisted that cudgel high and they have been beating Rosen and the Democrats with it for almost a week.

It was a relief, then, to see this gotcha clip from Mitt Romney at a campaign event in January, in which he said mothers on welfare should be forced to get a job outside the home or lose their government benefits. Cruel? No: “I want those individuals to have the dignity of work,” said Romney.

The remark, made to a Manchester, New Hampshire, audience, was aired during Chris Hayes’s MSNBC show Sunday. Nice. But pushing poor women out to “work” wasn’t just a Republican trick. For half a decade, from President Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it” to his signing of welfare reform (the pointedly named 1996 “Personal Responsibility Act”), pundits and politicians of both parties took aim at poor moms and skewed statistics to cast mothers on welfare—especially women of color on welfare—as dependent, lazy, greedy and breeding for benefits. For their good and ours, we were told, welfare “queens” needed to be forced out “to work.”

In many places, even raising kids while getting an education wasn’t “work” enough. The City University of New York, for example, lost thousands of welfare-receiving students when, under the direction of mayors Giuliani and then Bloomberg, administrators refused to count class time, work-study and internships as sufficient work activity to qualify for benefits. I keenly remember following Maureen Lane and fellow welfare recipients at Hunter College, as they led legislators on a tour of places where benefits recipients were forced to work. Low-wage, unskilled assignments without benefits or security were the only jobs people pushed off the rolls without education and training could get in the 1990s—in a good economy.

Now, as the New York Times’s Jason DeParle reported belatedly this past week, the situation’s worse. Throwing poor moms off benefits has shrunken welfare roles, but not poverty, to the contrary:

Pamela Loprest and Austin Nichols, researchers at the Urban Institute, found that one in four low-income single mothers nationwide—about 1.5 million—are jobless and without cash aid. That is twice the rate the researchers found under the old welfare law. More than 40 percent remain that way for more than a year, and many have mental or physical disabilities, sick children or problems with domestic violence.

Using a different definition of distress, Luke Shaefer of the University of Michigan and Kathryn Edin of Harvard examined the share of households with children in a given month living on less than $2 per person per day. It has nearly doubled since 1996, to almost 4 percent. Even when counting food stamps as cash, they found one of every fifty children live in such a household.

If the Democratic politicians now pandering to the Romneys had any spunk, they’d have backed Hilary Rosen 100 percent. If either party legislated as if parenting was work, things for poor women and their kids would be very different. Next time welfare reform is up for reauthorization, I hope they all—and their pet pundits—come in for no end of grief. They deserve it.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/16-10
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:33 am

Bet Ann didn't do it without the help of "domestics". I challenge both parties to explain how someone affords child care on a minimum wage job. :wallhead:
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby crikkett » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:01 am

brekin wrote:crikkett wrote:
brekin: The point I was trying to make was that nothing Bill Maher does or ever can do excuses Rush Limbaugh's actions.


Yeah, I got that. I think they both suck. This isn't just a Dem vs Repub narrative though.


Yes, we agree.

on edit:
Simulist wrote:
Ever since women started aspiring to have men’s jobs, backlashers have told those women that they’re enjoying their careers at the expense of their kids’ well being. They really can’t have it all. They’ll raise monsters, or worse, they’ll grow old on the shelf.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/16-10


FWIW (which is nothing) maternal neglect and the monsters it spawns have been around long before "career women" joined the workforce. But we seem to have a lot more monsters around these days.
Next time welfare reform is up for reauthorization, I hope they all-and their pet pundits-come in for no end of grief. They deserve it.

Thanks for the article, Simulist. The obvious hypocrisy didn't occur to me and this is a showstopper. I'll be using it around the shop.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Marie Laveau » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:35 pm

Nordic wrote:FWIW, my insurance, which is about as good as you can get, through my union, doesn't pay for female birth control pills. Neither did my wife's, back when she had really great insurance through her employer at Fox (which, admittedly was ultimately Rupert Murdoch). I think they provide for same - sex couples and all kinds of things, but no B.C. for the women!

It's just bizarre as hell. You'd think especially with the cost of childbirth they'd be happy to hand them out for free!



Follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion...there's only one thing I can think of (especially, as you say, given the cost of births - and add in emergency care/pre-term births (!!!); to me it adds up to the fact that "they" want to make sure we keep pumping out those little consumers.
Marie Laveau
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Marie Laveau » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:43 pm

Here's the thing: the wimmin are gonna start gettin' uppity over this shit. All of them. All races, all classes, rednecks, city folks, what-have-you. We've come a long way, baby.

I just can never read stuff like this without thinking of these passages from 'A Handmaid's Tale.' Especially, I get the picture of Sarah Palin and all those idgits, in my head.

"She wasn't singing anymore. She was making speeches. She was good at it. Her speeches were about the sanctitiy of the home, about how women should stay home. Serena Joy didn't do this herself, she made speeches instead; but, she presented their failure of hers as a sacrifice she was making for the good of all."

And then, after the right-wing took over:

"She doesn't make speeches anymore. She has become speechless. She stays in her home, but it doesn't seem to agree with her. How furious she must be, now that she's been taken at her word."
Marie Laveau
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Marie Laveau » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:46 am

Rush is at it again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-again_n_1449935.html

Honestly, I can't help but think that he gets a phone call every morning: "This is what you are going to say today."

And, Sandra Fluke being a good example, he says, "I am NOT going to say that!"

And the reply, "Oh, yes, you will say it. We bought you, we own you, and you will say exactly what we tell you to say."

At least I like to think that. Maybe he really is just a psycopathic idiot.
Marie Laveau
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The War on Women

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Tue May 01, 2012 3:35 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/ ... F820120501

AUSTIN, Texas, May 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the state of Texas can exclude Planned Parenthood from a state health program for low-income women because the organization performs abortions.

The ruling by 5th U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith reversed a lower court ruling Monday in favor of the family planning organization. The emergency ruling on Tuesday means the state is free - for now - to enforce a new rule banning Planned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program, Texas officials said. The court requested a response from Planned Parenthood by Tuesday afternoon.

"At this point, Planned Parenthood is not an eligible provider in the Women's Health Program," Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said on Tuesday.

The Women's Health Program, which is part of the federal-state Medicaid program, provides cancer screenings, birth control and other health services to more than 100,000 low-income women.

It does not pay for abortions or allow abortion providers to participate in the program. The new state rule bans program money from going to affiliates of abortion providers. State law has included that ban on affiliates since the program began in 2007 but the state did not enforce it.

Planned Parenthood said on Tuesday it will continue seeing patients who are enrolled in the program. It is unclear whether its clinics would be reimbursed by the government for that care.

"We don't want to cause any more confusion or fear than the state has already caused Texas women," Sarah Wheat, interim chief executive of Planned Parenthood in Austin, said in an email.

A spokeswoman for Texas Governor Rick Perry said the state will defend Texas law.

"Texas has a long history of protecting life (of the unborn)," spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in a statement.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel temporarily blocked the state rule, citing "the potential for immediate loss of access to necessary medical services by several thousand Texas women."

Planned Parenthood had told Yeakel that the healthcare of 40,000 women would be disrupted unless he blocked the rule.

But lawyers for the state said Planned Parenthood's mission was contrary to a program goal of reducing abortions and that the program would end if Planned Parenthood remains in it.

Texas notified the federal government last year of its intent to begin enforcing the ban, effectively excluding Planned Parenthood from the program.

President Barack Obama's administration has said it will not renew funding for the Texas program because the state was violating federal law by restricting the freedom to choose providers.

The state is suing over that decision. The federal government pays 90 percent of the $33 million-a-year program.

Planned Parenthood has been under siege in several states by abortion opponents. In the past year alone, states including Wisconsin, North Carolina, Tennessee and Indiana, in addition to Texas, have moved to block Planned Parenthood from receiving taxpayer money. (Reporting by Corrie MacLaggan; Editing by Greg McCune and Bill Trott)

:wallhead:
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrEvil, Elihu and 38 guests