Welcome to The TFP!
The Tilted Forum Project (TheTFP) is a discussion community that combines themes of progressive sexuality and universal acceptance. Maturity and companionship have been our cornerstones since 2002 as we've worked to expand the minds of everyone who participates.

You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user. Sign up or
Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions.

  1. To celebrate Tapatalk's 4th year anniversary, Tapatalk app is now completely free. Checkout Tapatalk 2 for Android in Amazon App Store, Tapatalk 4 (Beta) in Google Play, and the original Tapatalk app for iOS is also free in Apple App Store!

    Google Play

    Apple App Store

  2. Last year I pretty much gave away all the donations we took to the uncle phil causes.

    We've had some donations over the past couple of months, but I'm going to be short next month for sure as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated.

    Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit.

    Thanks!

    cynthetiq

    Click here: Donations

Has America Lost Its Mind? The New State-Sanctioned Misogyny

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Baraka_Guru, Mar 18, 2012.

  1. Online

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor

    Location:
    Toronto
    This topic has popped up in other threads, partly because the subject has crossover with the GOP primaries. However, this is largely a state issue.

    What is going on? It seems state politicians have an agenda to set back women's rights by decades if not centuries.

    Would anyone mind telling me what the problem is? Is this the Christian right mangling politics? Is this a new trend, or is it merely coming to a critical mass? Does each state law embolden other states?

    And, as one Nobel Prize-winning peace activist asked, “Why are these women not angry and beating men left and right?”

    Here is a summary of what's been going on. Click the link for the full article: Soraya Chemaly: 10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts

    And two key points about the above, as argued in the article (again, click the link for more):
    1. This is about sex and property, not life and morality.
    2. This is not about freedom of religion.
    Soraya Chemaly: 10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts
  2. Online

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Washington DC
    Is this the Christian right mangling politics? YES, in many of the states where laws have been proposed and/or enacted, evangelicals hold a significant plurality of Republican voters and Republican legislators either share their extreme beliefs or do not want to take them on as a matter of self-preservation.

    Is this a new trend, or is it merely coming to a critical mass? Both, since an 06 Supreme Court decision that upheld a ban on partial birth abortions, the anti-choice crowd were presented with a small crack in Roe and are working aggressively on bills at both the state and federal level to test the limits of Roe with the hope that they might be upheld.

    Does each state law embolden other states? YES or more like the influence of well-funded anti-choice organizations like Americans United for Life that promote model legislation. AUL is loosely affiliated with American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative organization of state legislators that is funded by folks like Paul Wyrich (of Moral Majority fame) and the Koch Brothers and produces of hundreds of model bills to further its agenda at the state level.


  3. Online

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor

    Location:
    Toronto
    Hrm.

    Follow-up question: Do you think these (either wholly or in part) should be challenged federally as a matter of women's rights (and individual rights, for that matter) despite the likely cry of "states rights!"? What are the challenges and implications of this? Is there or will there ever be the political will federally?

    Also: Where is the outrage? Are women's voices being marginalized by the media in a way that would make even Ron Paul blush?
  4. Online

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Washington DC
    The Federal courts have struck down several of these state laws in the last few years; most notably in Texas, but it really depends alot on the federal district or circuit; many are sympathetic to testing the limits of Roe.

    I'm at a loss as to why the outrage has not been greater, but again, these laws are popping up mostly in conservative states
  5. Offline

    rogue49 Loquacious Dude

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    The only thing I can think of is two things...

    1. Since it hasn't been an issue of note for awhile, those that used to protest or prevent or call-out have faded or are distracted,
    so no one nailed it immediately or with consistently when it reared its ugly head again.

    2. Since the economy is getting better and their "representative leaders" are lacking, certain conservatives are lashing out
    with the only true thing they think that differs from the "moderate" or "liberal" viewpoints and will get their base angry or riled-up

    It's like they are seeing how the campaigns and trends are working out,
    so they are trying to leverage in every policy, law and opinion they can to represent "conservative values" before they lose it.
    Candle likes this.
  6. Offline

    Avestruz Vertical

    Location:
    Montreal
    If anyone was still holding on to any sympathy towards the views of those who are anti-abortion, perhaps on some sort of "well, I guess it's all down to your opinion" sort of level, I should hope that point #1 completely obliterates it. There is no moral/ethical/religious argument for asking a woman to retain a dead thing inside her. These people are showing their true colours. I just hope people will actually see it. This isn't about religion, just as the thread starter says, and it's not about life. It truly is about sex, specifically the punishment of women for having sexual freedom, and perhaps also about money.

    While I utterly abhor the comparison to farm animals, I would be interested to know exactly why it is that there is no intervention to, er, evacuate the womb of a cow. I know nothing about veterinary costs and very little about herd farming so can only speculate, but I suspect that the cost of such an intervention is higher than the value of the animal itself. And given that the herd will be insured, why would you pay a fortune to eliminate the risk of death in the animal when you can not pay a fortune and probably be covered in the event of its death anyway.

    But let's just imagine I was talking about a woman and not a cow for that last paragraph.

    It's pretty gross that the life of that cow won't be protected, purely to maintain lower costs and higher profits. Not everybody might agree with that, perhaps the thread starter might, but if you apply the principle of profits before life to humans, I'm pretty sure everybody can get on board with the idea that it's disgusting and not a road anyone should be happy to go down.

    To summarise: ugh.
    kramus and mixedmedia like this.
  7. Offline

    mixedmedia ...

    Location:
    Florida
    I am simply so appalled and disgusted at what the people of this country seem relegated to accept and/or rejoice that I don't think I can even take in anymore without some sort of an existential breakdown. I mean, if I really take it all in, I will have to admit that i have no sentimentality or affection left for my home country and just accept that the world would be far better off if it were to breakdown entirely. It's a difficult realization to grapple with. So I don't.
    PonyPotato likes this.
  8. Offline

    Avestruz Vertical

    Location:
    Montreal
    I suppose I should actually answer the thread instead of just sounding off. This stuff has been brewing in me for days.

    I think all of these measures are an attempt to push the boundaries of the law without actually enacting anything that's unconstitutional or contrary to existing precedent. Some of these things are obviously designed to make abortion as upsetting and unattractive as possible, but don't necessarily prevent anybody from getting the abortion so, horrifying as they are, probably could fly.

    The dead foetus retention thing in particular seems wild and baffling on the face of it but the underlying motive is pretty clear. If you can ask a woman to keep her stillborn child inside her until her body naturally expels it (if it even does) then you can ask just the same of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Sure, go right ahead and have that termination, so long as you want the threat of infection/death/infertility hanging over you for months. And right before we do that, let's just give you a good old shafting with a stick for no clear reason.

    And now I'm sounding off again.
  9. Online

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor

    Location:
    Toronto
    “Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn’t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. They want to control how we dress. They want to control how we act. They even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies. Yes, it is hard to believe that even here at home, we have to stand up for women’s rights and reject efforts to marginalize any one of us, because America needs to set an example for the entire world.”

    — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at the Women in the World Summit at Lincoln Center on Saturday

    Hillary Clinton 2016?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/dowd-dont-tread-on-us.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
    kramus, Fangirl, PonyPotato and 3 others like this.
  10. Offline

    pan6467 a triangle in a circular world.

    To the right make a very simple very easy offer.... we'll give you pro lifers what you want on 2 conditions, NO capital punishment and you give up your fight against universal healthcare. You want these babies born then you pay for their healthcare and rehabilitation IF they go to prison.

    Point outr the hypocrisy that they show when they would rather people lose everything due to illness and/or don't get treated and die due to not having insurance. OR the state enforces capital punishment thus killing them.

    Very simple, very easy.... you are pro life? Then why once they are forced to be born do you stop caring about their life? Murder is murder, letting someone die because they don't have insurance and cannot afford it is plain and simple murder due to greed. Capital punishment is murder by the state, plain and simple, you did not try to rehabilitate this person you passed God's judgement over whether this person should live or die. that is God's decision isn't it? Or does MAN have the right to end a life? IF MAN and the state have the right to end a life, why can't a WOMAN have the right if a pregnancy can kill her or if she were raped?
    Avestruz likes this.
  11. Offline

    fflowley Don't just do something, stand there!

    I think, yes, unfortunately the collective mind has been lost.
    I can't believe how far it's gone already.
    And I say this as one, who 15 years ago would have proudly declared myself a Reagan Republican.
    We are off the deep end.
    I can still only hope that Santorum somehow wins the nomination, loses at least 48 if not all 50 states, and then we sane ones put the loonies back out on the fringe where they belong.
  12. Online

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Washington DC
    Women legislators are responding by introducing amendments to these bills or separate bills, generally in a sarcastic manner, that bring attention to the attack on women's reproductive rights currently being legislated.

    In Georgia, a bill would prevent men from getting vasectomies. In Oklahoma, a bill regulates where men can ejaculate.... "anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child." In Ohio, an amendment would mandate that men seeking Viagra be "tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about 'pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.'" In Virginia, an amendment that requires all men seeking Viagra to first get a rectal exam.
    In Protest, Democrats Zero In On Men's Reproductive Health : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

    Probably not the most effective way to respond and more out of frustration and anger than anything else, but at least, it raises awareness to some extent.
    KirStang, pan6467, Fangirl and 3 others like this.
  13. Offline

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    Except in Pennsylvania, where the ultrasound bill was introduced by a woman, Kathy Rapp.

    Pennsylvania joins states that would require ultrasound before abortion | PennLive.com

    Perhaps equally as appalling is the veracity with which they oppose 'Obamacare' under the guise of fighting a 'government take-over; and then turn right around at the first opportunity and start mucking about in the doctor-patient relationship. The most insidious form of which is the case of some proposed laws which protect doctors from liability if they lie to women about their pregnancy in order to steer them away from an abortion, fundamentally eliminating informed consent.

    I find myself virtually unable to talk or think about this without wanting to start breaking things.
  14. Offline

    pan6467 a triangle in a circular world.


    To be honest as a man, I don't see anything wrong with these, except I wouldn't want to live in Virginia. And would that include men serving in Virginia's military bases? That gives a whole new meaning to "No fucky in the Vagina" as we used to call Norfolk when I was stationed there.
  15. Online

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor

    Location:
    Toronto
    Now, is it just me or is John McCain one of the very few voices of reason amongst the Republicans at any level these days?

  16. Offline

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Can these be purchased for home use?
    Is there a vibrating speed?
    Can I get a model that isn't as long as the Florida panhandle?
    Does it have a brush head attachment?
    Just asking.

    [IMG]


    WTF are they thinking? Is there any other purpose for this other than intrusion?
  17. Online

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor

    Location:
    Toronto
    Guilt? Shame? Humiliation?
    Tully Mars likes this.
  18. Offline

    EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

    Location:
    FREEDOM!
    ....weird how that works out
  19. Offline

    Charlatan You're all doomed to perdition!

    Location:
    Temasek
    The US continues to be an amazing and baffling place to me.

    I think it would tear itself apart if it didn't "create" people like Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden every few years to focus their collective wrath.
  20. Offline

    greywolf Slightly Tilted

    Let's face it...women are frightening. They have strange bodies that aren't like ours, and they can do things with them that we can't (reproduce, nurse children). They can't be understood by plain masculine logic; they react in ways we don't expect. They can, and do, control us (mothers or wives) and impose unwelcome restrictions on our desires, be they recreational or sexual. They make demands on us, expecting us to act as rationale beings and treat them as rationale, human beings.

    Obviously we need to fight back and show them that we are still masters of our own houses. Since it is now frowned upon to do that with our greater physical strength, we need to do so in more subtle, modern ways (okay, and a lot of not-so-subtle ways, too). What better then, than to do so under the pretense of protecting society from destruction by ensuring that there will be future generations?

    Or perhaps it's not the fear of women that is driving us to do this... maybe we are just incredibly jealous of the fundamentalist Islamic states where women are still second-class citizens or even better, mere chattel. Or in China, where society will allow the selective termination of female foetuses so that we can be assured of only having sons (that one may come back to bite us, I'm afraid).

    Part of why these proposed laws don't seem as outrageous as they are is that they can be put in some sort "context" that women still have equal rights here, and it is so much better than elsewhere. Somehow, the logic of that escapes me, but I'm probably defective as a man.
    mixedmedia likes this.