When will the men in politics realize they do not have the right to dictate rights and then to take rights away from Women!
15
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
22 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
As soon as we can get women to break the glass ceiling. As soon as we convince women whom allow men to control that its not something that is ok for them to do so. As soon as we can keep religion from creeping into politics and education or as soon as we can eliminate religion as a whole. A serious woman's strike would be a good way, but there are plenty of women who would resist being free because there belief system demands they be obedient. Prevent kids from being forced into religion.
At work there has been a recent emphasis on Lean-In, a term coined by Cheryl Sandburg of google and FB fame. The simplest synopsis is that we need to get women to sit at the table, find ways to open things up so that women feel comfortable about moving up, look at how we word things so as to not exclude women. Anyone else who can, please feel free to expand on this.
We also need to look at what we are teaching out kids, make sure that they know that know one has the right to decided what we do with our bodies. Proper Education starting in early childhood and less separation by gender could also bring about better inclusion.
And one last thing take away viagra and have someone show that allowing it while denying women rights to decide their own reproductive choices. Because these guys are essentially saying women must be subservient to men and produce their off spring.
cimoore34
Level 7
July 14, 2018
4
"One's body is inviolable, subject to one's will alone."
This really speaks to me. I gave up on god when I was a teen and have always been anti-authoritarian to the core of my being. But recent;y I joined the Satanic Temple, and this one of the 7 tenets was a major reason why.
I strongly believe that people have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies; whether that's abortion, getting pregnant and carrying to term, getting fixed, using substances, body modifications, steroid use, transitioning, sex of different types, or anything else. And I like to start from the assumption that people are capable of making informed decisions about their health and wellbeing even if they are not the decisions I would make for myself.
It seems to me that the same people who wish to restrict women's ability to access safe and legal termination of pregnancy or bith control and contraceptives, often also wish to stop trans people from recieving medical treatment, and stop people from getting tattooed, and stop people from using drugs, and stop people from accessing or making certain music or types of media that offend them, and so on. These people seem obsessed with controling others behaviors.
Of course the question becomes how much is their religion and it's moralist authoritarianism and hegemony the cause, and how much is it just the conveinient excuse for these controling behaviors.
PolyComrade
Level 6
July 14, 2018
3
Not to be a prick here but I think it's been made clear that they won't and women will have to take enough control to set rules, restrictions, or precedent that mandate women have control over their own bodies. White men at least in America have since the end of slavery gone down hill on equality for every single race or sex dispute and the corruption of government hasn't helped in the least. So, kind of a downer but you'll have to take it but I do wish you luck.
mattersauce
Level 7
July 14, 2018
3
When those types of men realize that they do not have to be insecure about women, thus feeling the need to control them. That maybe they feel useless compared to women since they don't have as great a role, and therefore importance, in the development of the human species. Women do so much. They carry the child, give birth to the child, nurture the child, raise the child, educate the child(unless it's a boy, then men teach the boy to be a man), they care for the child. Even in our later years, it is the elder women who still care for the children, not the men. The men are there for the defence of the tribe and heavy labor. I feel that some men have this feeling of inadequacy when compared to women. Therefore, they control them.
Captain747ex
Level 7
July 14, 2018
3
That's just it. They never will.
@KKGator Yeah, way too stubborn to realize that they really have nothing to be insecure about.
I think it's changing Capt. We are not tied to those gender roles anymore. Feminism has allowed men to be carers and nurturers without losing masculinity. There are increasingly more stay-at-home dads. Most dads of today are much more involved and interested in their kids lives. They no longer have to struggle under the weight of being soul 'defence of the tribe' (women join the army too you know). Men no longer have to be the soul decision maker or bread winner. I agree that they shouldn't feel insecure, they should feel liberatated.
There are men and women out there who are too concerned with what their neighbour is doing. Policy makers should concentrate on improving the economy for all.
@MsDemeanour I agree with you. I feel that things will greatly improve over the next few generations. I'd like to see it happen sooner, but we'll see.
Being pedantic, many men in and out of politics are pro-choice and some women are pro-life.
educatedredneck
Level 7
July 15, 2018
2
My guess? Best case, 20 years.
It's possible, in two or three generation shifts in overall public perception there might be enough of a regression towards the middle on the issue on both sides to facilitate effective compromise, and enough of the oldest generation currently holding a statistically significant amount of both overt and covert political influence throughout all three branches may die or retire during a less misogynistic administration and be replaced with more reasonable people. I personally don't believe this is an issue that should be up for discussion at all and systemic change should have happened a long time ago, but this country was founded upon and revolves around the idea of compromise for the greatest possible good of everyone involved, and that no one person or insular group of people should be able to unilaterally determine what the greatest good means. Of the People, By the People, For the People.
Government office is not supposed to be a position of power or place of authority, it is supposed to be a duty and service of the highest possible priority to both the community and the people within it. But complacency and toxic political strategies often make governments insular and out-of-line with the actual needs of the people. And the more disparate voices cry out for individual changes the weaker the collective voice becomes, until we are all fringe communities fighting each other for the scraps of political agency offered by the ruling class, who were never truly of one mind or one purpose but understand the power of intentional downstream resource scarcity and cooperative economic strategies.
Also, these issues are stalls used to slow down progress from the other side when an election loss is expected. The Democrats can't pass new laws if they're too busy repealing old laws for four years. And by then everyone will be mad at them for spending our dwindling national resources on trying to repeal old laws the Republicans can get back in and dig in a little bit further. Back and forth over and over until no one remembers well enough to realize both sides of the aisle are infected with the problem members operating to maintain the status quo for the class as a whole.
geist171
Level 6
July 14, 2018
2
Some atheists are pro-life but this largely breaks on religious lines and the USA is trending secular. I don't expect abortion to be much of a political issue in two generations (still too long, sorry) then maybe we'll really look at decreasing evil abortions through education.
educatedredneck
Level 7
July 14, 2018
1
I am factoring in for a cumulatively decreasing amount of 'legacy douchebags' per cycle, as many old school beltway insiders who may support misogynist agendas will ensure their proteges enter office in their stead.
@geist171 maybe, I think politics is extremely divisive right now and see minimal attempts to understand other views or work towards effective compromises.
Abortion is the one political issue I see the least realistic compromise bc IMO it boils down to if a zygote has a soul. If one believes zygotes have immortal souls, abortion is murder. If one doesn't even believe in souls or is ambiguous about souls, then they tend to look at the real world negatives of forcing pregnant women who aren't prepared to care for children to have kids.
We SHOULD still be able to find common ground on decreasing evil abortion through better sex ed. I assume there's some bias and haven't seen peer reviews, but the few studies I've seen of Unitarian Universalist's OWL sex ed are phenomenal at lowering unwanted pregnancy, STDs....I doubt most pro-lifers could tolerate UU OWL's blatant pro-GLBTQ messages though.
@educatedredneck I'm under the impression politics in this country have been (engaged in our present state of) aggressively divisive since the beginning of the Cold War
@geist171 congressional voting records seems to give evidence contrary to your perceptions. Twenty years ago reps voted against their party w some frequency. Today the main thing that determines if any legislation passes is if the party in control supports the bill.
I think reps on both sides vote lock step w their party > 90% today v < 60% twenty years ago.
@educatedredneck that's an interesting point to consider, though it's more disheartening than less, I fear. Lol. Binary thinking in a society designed to be a spectrum of compromise is non-sustainable for one or the other
@geist171 we need efficacy which means compromise more than we need self righteous rhetoric unfortunately every political issue seems filled with rigid self righteous right now.
This isn't sustainable
@educatedredneck and it's becoming impossible to speak in a lot of public forums from a stance of moderation and compromise without immediately being called out as a member of the opposing side's boogeymen (crazy liberal / evil conservative)
@geist171 there's factual criticism of every political side IMO.
I'm solidly pro-choice. I also question how common or rare late term abortions are bc who would report an illegal abortion? The doctor/clinic who profits, the woman who could be prosecuted or people who never hear about them?
I also think it's ok to encourage women who have several abortions to review safer sex practices.
Mentioning either of those things in many pro-choice circles upsets people no matter how pro-choice you are.
@educatedredneck I argue reproductive rights and social infrastructure issues with conservatives and gun control/2nd amendment and military issues with liberals with about the same frequency
Democrats are better lovers....
nicknotes
Level 8
July 14, 2018
1
Possibly! Like everything else it is overtly subjective in nature and guise!
Women should have full rights to the kitchen.
EDIT:
(FYI, this is not saying "Women's only rights should be those found in the kitchen.", nor is it reducing the rights of women in any way. It is an affirmation of proper rights that already exist, just for idiots who don't comprehend sentences written at an elementary school grade-level. I am not against women, or anything. Calm down and read a book so you have less issues with literacy.)
DZhukovin
Level 7
July 14, 2018
0
You only feel that way because it reminds you of your mom, when she used to cook for you as a little boy..
Oh mom... The only woman who will ever like you.
@goldenvalleyguy I don't understand, I was just expressing rights they should necessarily have, out of having full rights. What is the problem with what I said?
It doesn't remotely say that, and quite frankly that would be sexist.
I think you're confusing goldenvalleyguy with the fellow who made the comment about women in the kitchen.
Having a baby puts a woman at risk, as pregnancies involve a lot more than just putting a coin in a gum ball machine.
If a pregnancy was unwanted (all precautions and measures were taken) and still occurred, the woman (not the man who got to wipe and go) has to carry the baby to term, give birth to it and then either raise it or give it up for adoption.
These are not simple "I'll have a pastrami on rye" decisions. They are life altering.
How about this... men have the right to have sex ONLY with women they're going marry (until the child is 18 years old). If the women should be obligated to carry a pregnancy to term, then men should have a similar life altering obligation. If you're helping to make the baby then your obligation should be the same.
What does fun have to do with it? So, are you on the hook (after your fun) to move in with the woman and raise the child? You didn't answer it the first time.
And what if it's not fun? What if a woman is raped? What if it's a 14 year old? The chance of a young person dying during childbirth is greater.
“A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. Human embryos do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context, that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.
Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings.”
― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
Thanks. 
It's almost impossible to offend me. I do like to take these opportunities to make people either aware or have them explain their position - especially when they are not willing to assign to themselves the same obligation as the woman has. My last series of questions?
Crickets...
I think this dude's a Christian trolling people here.
You're right though. Wasted typing!
Lol there are so many idiots fuming at my comment. Nobody here understood the joke:
If women have full rights, then they have full rights to the kitchen, also. That is just a necessary logical conclusion. So to say that women should have full rights to the kitchen is just an affirmation of proper rights that they happen to already have. It's not a reduction of rights, or anything, learn how to freaking read, people.
This post was a practical joke to bait illiterate morons into assuming some stupid normative interpretation, and look how many people actually bought into it.
I bet that people will fail to comprehend this comment, too. Just give it some moments, some idiot will read this comment, and try to assume an agenda because of stupid emotional thinking.
I seriously feel bad for the people who have to associate with my attackers on this thread. It must be so painful to have to deal with people who have zero language comprehension, but insist on always "expressing" their minds.
Moral of the story: Use your brain. Written language is necessarily descriptive, but only speculatively normative. That is just common sense, but clearly none of the people on this comment thread have any. (Also, books are not bad for you.)
Sam Harris is not able to reason with Christians because Christians are mostly not reasoning people. They have at best a normative understanding of their own thinking, language, and seem to view reality as a rendering of what they are told in scripture. They don't have a basic level of intelligence to apply facultied thinking to the subject of theism, and Sam kind of suffers from the same problem that they do, otherwise he would be an Agnostic, and not an Atheist. Point blank, your beliefs are a reflection of what your mind is able to comprehend.
Haha. Nice try!
There's nothing wrong with trolling. It's a form of humor.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.