News Could the Women's March Trigger a Global Movement for Rights?

[russ_watters]

Adding to this:

Well, then we do disagree. Because the "pay gap" *is* mostly due to differences in jobs and other life choices (and even more to the point moving forward, to age). And your own source indicates that.

MM, the article you cited is titled "A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter", indicating that the "gender wage gap" is all but closed (is in its last chapter), and its thesis is that the major remaining piece of the puzzle is reward for hours worked. It explicitly says that the 78% is mostly not due to discrimination, but lifestyle choices, combined with economics. Indeed, the thesis of the article is that what is left of the pay gap after the other lifestyle choices are taken out is that people who work longer hours - primarily men - are rewarded for it:

The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproprtionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours.

In any case, it is difficult for me to put an exact number on the issue both because many articles gloss over it and the exact number depends on the thrust of the question. In particular, it varies a lot with age -- as one would expect, since you can't retroactively fix a person's earning's history. In other words, the problem is less moving forward than it looks when looking backwards.

In any case, when properly controlled, the numbers tend to fall into the 90%+ range:

However, multiple studies from OECD, AAUW, and the US Department of Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5–6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, when wages were adjusted to different individual choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and maternal/paternal leave.[7] The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiating skills and sexual discrimination.[7][8][9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

On the conservative end, that's 70% of the 22% gap can be explained by life choices alone.

So again: why put "78%!" on a sign when the more accurate number might be "95%!" Simply put: it's a lot easier to sell that it's a problem when you use a wider gap, even if the number is wildly misleading at best.

The disparity gets even smaller if the question asked is: how much will discrimination in the workplace affect my daughter via the gender pay gap? The answer to that question is simplest put: not at all. Thus the answer to the related question: do women need a an ERA or gender-wage laws? No.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Racist laws? I guess that's where we'll have to break the discussion and agree to disagree, because from where I sit, the pendulum has swung in the other direction and the racist laws on the books lean pro minority/anti-white (affirmative action).

War on drugs, three strikes, privatization of prisons, housing segregation to name a few.

But a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and crime is a self-contained issue even if it started with a puch from history. I guess what I would want to know here is: what solution does the history lead you to propose for this problem?

What do you mean "self-contained"? History doesn't lend a solution, but it's the start to a solution.

The difference here - and it is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - is that *I'm* not the one who needs to be saying that: if an inner-city black single mom says it, her kids' situation will improve, and that is what matters most in a free/democratic society.

Yes that is the simple "buck up" personal responsibility message and those that adhere to that clearly don't spend any time in inner cities. The inner cities are a different world. One that you can't understand unless you step inside it. I would encourage anyone who thinks that all a single black mom needs to do is to tell their kid to "behave" to volunteer in these areas. There are a lot of bad parents, yes, but they are victims themselves. But there are also great and inspiring inner city parents out there and still they're kids fall victim to a bullet or a gang or easy drugs because their world is different. Some have to work 3 jobs to get by. Now exactly how much mentoring can you do with your kid when you are working 3 jobs?

I understand I sound like a bleeding heart and there is plenty blame to go around and I am all for holding people accountable, but we really must walk into that world to understand it and how it came to be. I don't have any solution, thousands of smarter people than I work on that every day, but what I do know is that the public in general needs to educate themselves in black history and how various social and government structures have worked again them.

 

[russ_watters]

War on drugs, three strikes, privatization of prisons, housing segregation to name a few.

Fair enough; agree to disagree, but I might buy that book to try to understand your point better.

What do you mean "self-contained"?

I mean that once the cycle starts, it feeds itself regardless of what caused it: Poverty causes poverty. Blacks are not the only ones in the country with a high poverty rate and a cyclic poverty problem (which was my point in separating poverty from racism). For example, Appalacia:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/countryboys/readings/duncan.html

Sometimes the trigger for a small town is something as simple as a factory closing. But once it starts, the cycle is tough to break.

History doesn't lend a solution, but it's the start to a solution.

Ok...that doesn't really answer the question, but I surmise from this and the previous that since you believe that racism is still legislated that undoing the legislation is the start of the solution. Unfortunately, that isn't mutually exclusive to my idea that once started the cycle continues on its own until someone or something breaks it. E.G., softening crime laws might get people out of jail, but it won't cause more kids to graduate from high school and incomes to rise. It doesn't directly address the problem, so it doesn't provide a solution.

Yes that is the simple "buck up" personal responsibility message and those that adhere to that clearly don't spend any time in inner cities. The inner cities are a different world. One that you can't understand unless you step inside it. I would encourage anyone who thinks that all a single black mom needs to do is to tell their kid to "behave" to volunteer in these areas. There are a lot of bad parents, yes, but they are victims themselves. But there are also great and inspiring inner city parents out there and still they're kids fall victim to a bullet or a gang or easy drugs because their world is different. Some have to work 3 jobs to get by. Now exactly how much mentoring can you do with your kid when you are working 3 jobs?

I haven't done work in inner cities myself, no. My knowledge of the anecdotes comes mostly second-hand, from teachers who have their souls crushed in inner cities by jaw-droppingly bad parenting.

It's worth noting that you started your anecdote with "single black mom". In my view, that's a situation that has already failed, but the BLM movement doesn't agree.

And it my experience also includes experience with the poverty cycle for white people; from parents who actively discouraged their kids from going to college so they could get menial jobs and help pay rent (despite a mom who never held a real job in her life).

The most direct experience is with my mom's side of her family, which was relatively poor, and seeing who escaped that and why.

I understand I sound like a bleeding heart and there is plenty blame to go around and I am all for holding people accountable, but we really must walk into that world to understand it and how it came to be. I don't have any solution...

No, the bleeding heart thing doesn't bother me because it means you care. What I don't like about the worldview is that it focuses on blame more than solutions, IMO. On the other side, maybe you see personal responsibility as a cop-out to avoid blame and empathy, but I see it as the founding principle of the US and the only solution proven to work. And the beauty of it is that it's easy and free.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Fair enough; agree to disagree, but I might buy that book to try to understand your point better.

I think it's a must read and would absolutely be willing to ship my copy to you. PM me if interested. I would love to hear your thoughts.

I mean that once the cycle starts, it feeds itself regardless of what caused it: Poverty causes poverty. Blacks are not the only ones in the country with a high poverty rate and a cyclic poverty problem (which was my point in separating poverty from racism). For example, Appalacia:

I agree, that is generational poverty and requires some luck or herculean strength to overcome. It is not unique to blacks, but the causes are different and so it should be treated differently.

It doesn't directly address the problem, so it doesn't provide a solution.

Creating "just" laws are a good and necessary start to stop the bleeding. There is no quick fix. It will take many generations even if solutions are figured out.

My knowledge of the anecdotes comes mostly second-hand, from teachers who have their souls crushed in inner cities by jaw-droppingly bad parenting.

No doubt! My wife has inner city teaching experience and it is indeed soul crushing. Another way inner cities are getting screwed is from charter schools. Charter schools get public funding and little oversight. They get to pick which students they want. That leaves all the trouble kids to fend for themselves in the public school. Well no kidding the public school will struggle when they get cherry picked and are now full of trouble makers. Also the school my wife worked at had a yearly audit. Turns out to meet requirements the janitor posed as one of the teachers because he was technically more qualified. I mean, what, the hell, right?

What I don't like about the worldview is that it focuses on blame more than solutions, IMO.

Blame by itself is not helpful, but understanding causes and effect fully is vital.

What I don't like about the worldview is that it focuses on blame more than solutions, IMO. On the other side, maybe you see personal responsibility as a cop-out to avoid blame and empathy, but I see it as the founding principle of the US and the only solution proven to work. And the beauty of it is that it's easy and free.

A lot of people reject any kind of examination beyond personal responsibility and proclaim "white guilt!". This hamstrings understanding and is an unfortunate defense mechanism. Truth be told this is a really really complex issue and all parts of life are involved. Personal responsibility works when there is a level playing field. Yes life is not fair, but minorities have been specially targeted throughout their history. In the documentary "13th" there is even sound recording of two different presidential advisors who admitted laws were passed to negatively affect minorities.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The fact that he said it is irrelevant.

It's very relevant. It adds to his overall crude image. The world leader he most resembles right now in terms of the way he presents himself is third world dictator, Rodrigo Duterte. People around the world are either aghast or laughing at us since he got elected just based on the outrageous way he presents himself.

The fact that he did it is concerning, but nobody is going to see an orange man child as an inspiration and want to follow suit because of him.

I guess you never saw any footage of a Trump rally. There are literally millions of people in the US who consider him a hero.

It's an issue if his attitude affects his policies. There is no evidence that it will.

His attitude toward women is what is going to allow him to concede all kinds of power to that faction of Republicans who are super-religious when it comes to Planned Parenthood and such. Kasich and Pence, for example.

 

[fahraynk]

It's very relevant. It adds to his overall crude image. The world leader he most resembles right now in terms of the way he presents himself is third world dictator, Rodrigo Duterte. People around the world are either aghast or laughing at us since he got elected just based on the outrageous way he presents himself.

I guess you never saw any footage of a Trump rally. There are literally millions of people in the US who consider him a hero.

His attitude toward women is what is going to allow him to concede all kinds of power to that faction of Republicans who are super-religious when it comes to Planned Parenthood and such. Kasich and Pence, for example.

When it comes to planned parenthood, I am pro choice... but I don't think its moral to force people who think abortion is immoral to pay for it ala taxes...
Also not moral to force me to pay for an abortion for a girl I am not hooking up with...
All he can do is cut federal funding to abortion. He can't overturn Roe v Wade without at least 2 more judges other then the one he is appointing.

Also why not make the distinction between A) his attitude on women and B) his attitude on women who are attacking him politically in the media.
I think they are very different.

 

[zoobyshoe]

When it comes to planned parenthood, I am pro choice... but I don't think its moral to force people who think abortion is immoral to pay for it ala taxes...

This same thinking applies to everything taxes pay for and variations of your objection have been raised many times in the past. Each person has some objection to some percentage of the things their tax money covers. You most often hear this argument raised in conjunction with war; some people don't want their taxes spent on killing people. Then you hear it raised with regard to welfare; some people don't want their taxes spent on "freeloaders." Pick a place where the government spends money and there's someone who objects to it being spent there.

I'm not sure if it's feasible to alter the tax system such that people could designate where they want their tax money to go. The IRS bureaucracy is already unwieldy.

Also why not make the distinction between A) his attitude on women and B) his attitude on women who are attacking him politically in the media.
I think they are very different.

No point. His objectionable attitude toward women came out loud and clear in a tape made years ago and was firmly in place before he ever ran for president. That is what is being protested.

 

[fahraynk]

This same thinking applies to everything taxes pay for and variations of your objection have been raised many times in the past. Each person has some objection to some percentage of the things their tax money covers. You most often hear this argument raised in conjunction with war; some people don't want their taxes spent on killing people. Then you hear it raised with regard to welfare; some people don't want their taxes spent on "freeloaders." Pick a place where the government spends money and there's someone who objects to it being spent there.

I'm not sure if it's feasible to alter the tax system such that people could designate where they want their tax money to go. The IRS bureaucracy is already unwieldy.No point. His objectionable attitude toward women came out loud and clear in a tape made years ago and was firmly in place before he ever ran for president. That is what is being protested.

So, you are right that welfare is in the same category. It is basically forced charity. However I would point out that half the country is not against welfare. In the case of abortion, you are forcing half of the people to take part in what they think is murder. In the case of welfare... it could easily be argued in a long forum thread that welfare might be a net detriment to society... but its another issue. Anyway its still forced charity.

War is not in this category for obvious reasons. Not charity, necessary for defense. Obvious.

And in regards to Trumps comment "proving" his attitude toward all women...
Tell me, do you honestly believe there are NOT a million women who would love a billionaire to grab them? Because that being the case...the worse you could say about him is that he is too honest!

 

[jedishrfu]

BBC just published an anniversary article on the Women's Strike in Iceland forty years ago:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822

Imagine if that happened here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, you are right that welfare is in the same category. It is basically forced charity.

All taxes are forced. Pick anything taxes are being spent on and you'll be able to find someone who feels they are being forced to pay for something against their will.

In the case of abortion, you are forcing half of the people to take part in what they think is murder...

...War is not in this category for obvious reasons. Not charity, necessary for defense. Obvious.

Somehow you missed all the objections that have been raised over wars that were not seen as defensive, especially Viet Nam, and more recently, Gulf War #2 which failed to uncover the alleged weapons of mass destruction it was intended to prevent being implemented. A large percentage of US citizens felt they had been forced to fund the purposeless killing. There are ongoing objections to covert CIA operations that are being paid for by taxes. People aren't given a choice where their tax dollars are spent. You can vote for the candidate you think will spend your taxes the most wisely, but if that person doesn't win, it's game over for two, four, six, or eight years. Even if your candidate does win, you might be surprised to find them putting your tax dollars into something you didn't anticipate they would, and which you find objectionable.

And in regards to Trumps comment "proving" his attitude toward all women...

Why is "proving" in quotes here?

Tell me, do you honestly believe there are NOT a million women who would love a billionaire to grab them? Because that being the case...the worse you could say about him is that he is too honest!

Between hookers, who would let him grab them in exchange for an agreed upon fee, and those who would feel honored, like this woman:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CusJ0VWWYAAnWUS.jpg:small

there may in fact be a million woman who would love it. So what? How many more women are there who react like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-women-sick_us_5804d6ece4b0e8c198a8fb66

Just the act of writing down the misogynistic words of Trump and his defenders, over and over, has taken a toll on my body. It’s been difficult to sleep, to eat, to focus on work. My stomach is still upset, my chest still tight. Clothes that fit me a month ago are hanging off me.

In writing this, I’m not asking for sympathy. I decided to share my story because I suspected that many women feel the same way. And when I put the question out on social media, dozens of rape and sexual assault survivors responded with similar tales of feeling triggered by Trump. This election is literally making women sick. It’s such a common phenomenon, in fact, that the DC Psychological Association is planning to hold support groups for women who are experiencing symptoms of anxiety from this political climate.

“We’ve seen a lot of emotional distress because of the stuff going on with the election,” said Dr. Stephen Stein, president of the DCPA. “Certainly with women whohad been traumatized before, or had been assaulted or raped or molested, there’s something very unique in this experience that’s enormously painful and scary for a lot of people.”

 

[fahraynk]

All taxes are forced. Pick anything taxes are being spent on and you'll be able to find someone who feels they are being forced to pay for something against their will.

Somehow you missed all the objections that have been raised over wars that were not seen as defensive, especially Viet Nam, and more recently, Gulf War #2 which failed to uncover the alleged weapons of mass destruction it was intended to prevent being implemented. A large percentage of US citizens felt they had been forced to fund the purposeless killing. There are ongoing objections to covert CIA operations that are being paid for by taxes. People aren't given a choice where their tax dollars are spent. You can vote for the candidate you think will spend your taxes the most wisely, but if that person doesn't win, it's game over for two, four, six, or eight years. Even if your candidate does win, you might be surprised to find them putting your tax dollars into something you didn't anticipate they would, and which you find objectionable.Why is "proving" in quotes here?

Between hookers, who would let him grab them in exchange for an agreed upon fee, and trailer trash types who would feel honored, like this woman:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CusJ0VWWYAAnWUS.jpg:small

there may in fact be a million woman who would love it. So what? How many more women are there who react like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-women-sick_us_5804d6ece4b0e8c198a8fb66

Proving is in quotes because the way you matter o factly stated he has a bad opinion of women. He stated the truth, from what he sees. He sees a bunch of money hungry women around him constantly who probably want to marry him ect. He was being honest. You say : No point. His objectionable attitude toward women came out loud and clear in a tape made years ago and was firmly in place before he ever ran for president. That is what is being protested.
See "loud and clear" and "firmly in place". You are taking it as like... "proof" that he hates women or something. I mean, his campaign manager is a women. Probably the first women campaign manager of a wining president. He has a daughter. Hes just being honest. You saying that oh all of these women at huffington post don't like this behavior... this says nothing about the many women hovering around a billionaire that do like it. This does not mean Trump was not telling the truth about women who he has encountered. How can him accurately describing many women around him be him having a bad attitude...

So you are again trying to lump all taxes into the same category as abortion... its childish. We pay for roads because we all need and use them. We all need police and firemen. We don't all need abortions. We don't all need welfare. They are completely different categories. If you can't admit that then you are a lost cause. Name another tax that has 50% of the population thinking its immoral. You can't. I am saying that it is a forced charity.
If all these feminists want abortions to be free then why can't they all donate to an abortion charity? Why do you have to force people who don't approve of it to pay for it? If its because the feminists won't give enough... then they must not really believe its that important!

As far as wars, you want to pretend that is the same thing as paying for police and firemen... wars may be debatable... but at some point debates have to stop and we have to take action. Maybe we made the wrong choice, but we have to make a choice sometimes. Deal with it. It is not comparable with abortion. We all need to be safe from enemies. I can take personal responsibility and wear a condom. I can't take personal responsibility and stop a terrorist plot overseas. The fact that I have to explain it...

 

[Astronuc]

So you are again trying to lump all taxes into the same category as abortion health care... its childish. We pay for roads because we all need and use them. We all need police and firemen.

and health care. It's not so much about feminism, as it is about economics.

From http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ (2011)

Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

So, no abortions are not funded by federal taxes.

From - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/

it's important to note that federal dollars are not used to provide the service at the center of the political debate around Planned Parenthood: abortions. That's been banned by law in almost all cases since 1976. (The details of the ban have shifted over time.) Instead, the organization uses money from other sources — private donors and foundations as well as fees — to fund its abortion services.

As for the wars, we do need to protect ourselves. Perhaps it would help to not make enemies in the first place. Furthermore, we don't need to be spending $billions$ for over-priced contractors like KBR or Blackwater, renamed as XE Services in 2009, and now known as Academi since 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_in_post-invasion_Iraq#Corruption
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of...cial-auditors-final-report-to-congress-shows/

 

[zoobyshoe]

Proving is in quotes because the way you matter o factly stated he has a bad opinion of women.

Quotation marks are for when you are quoting someone verbatim.

He stated the truth, from what he sees. He sees a bunch of money hungry women around him constantly who probably want to marry him ect. He was being honest. You say : No point. His objectionable attitude toward women came out loud and clear in a tape made years ago and was firmly in place before he ever ran for president. That is what is being protested.
See "loud and clear" and "firmly in place". You are taking it as like... "proof" that he hates women or something.I mean, his campaign manager is a women. Probably the first women campaign manager of a wining president. He has a daughter. Hes just being honest. You saying that oh all of these women at huffington post don't like this behavior... this says nothing about the many women hovering around a billionaire that do like it. This does not mean Trump was not telling the truth about women who he has encountered. How can him accurately describing many women around him be him having a bad attitude...

You are inventing stuff. Trump isn't boasting about having to fight women off. He's not claiming women can't keep their hands off him. He's claiming the opposite, that he can't keep his hands off women:

You know I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and **** her. She was married.

and

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the kitty. You can do anything.

He's boasting about being able to get away with forcing himself on women.

So you are again trying to lump all taxes into the same category as abortion...

As far as wars, you want to pretend that is the same thing as paying for police and firemen... wars may be debatable... but at some point debates have to stop and we have to take action.

No, I'm saying wars are the same thing in some people's minds as abortion is in some Christian minds. Some people are horrified that Obama used their tax dollars to fund rebels in Syria claiming those rebels are a hairsbreadth away from being terrorists, and increasing the opposition to Assad only made the Russians bomb more civilians, killing women and children. Do we need to be involved in Syria? Did we need to be involved in Viet nam? Did we need to invade Iraq a second time? I knew some people who were extremely pissed we invaded the first time: killing people over oil. You had better take a look at how much of your tax dollar is spent killing people who may not have had to be killed for us to be OK. Then come back and talk about people being forced to pay for abortions. US citizens are routinely forced to pay for killing.

Name anything tax dollars are spent on and there's someone who objects. Anti-abortionists are not special in that sense. You are claiming they are, that abortion is different than all the other objections. How is it different from getting Syrians shot and blown up? How many innocent civilians have been killed by isis due to the US backed attempt to retake Mosul? Why should US citizens have paid for the My Lai massacre?

The Mỹ Lai Massacre (Vietnamese: thảm sát Mỹ Lai [tʰɐ̃ːm ʂɐ̌ːt mǐˀ lɐːj], [mǐˀlɐːj] (

listen); /ˌmiːˈlaɪ/, /ˌmiːˈleɪ/, or/ˌmaɪˈlaɪ/)[1] was the Vietnam War mass killing of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968. It was committed by U.S. Army soldiers from the Company C of the 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment,11th Brigade of the 23rd (Americal) Infantry Division. Victims included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated.[2][3] Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest.

-wiki

Anyway, see Astronuc's post about how much Planned Parenthood money actually goes to abortions. That's not their thing. Their main goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent the spread of STD's by education.

 

[fahraynk]

and health care. It's not so much about feminism, as it is about economics.

From http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ (2011)
So, no abortions are not funded by federal taxes.

From - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/As for the wars, we do need to protect ourselves. Perhaps it would help to not make enemies in the first place. Furthermore, we don't need to be spending $billions$ for over-priced contractors like KBR or Blackwater, renamed as XE Services in 2009, and now known as Academi since 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_in_post-invasion_Iraq#Corruption
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of...cial-auditors-final-report-to-congress-shows/

No abortions funded by federal taxes? Then you have nothing to worry about. Stopping gov funding of planned parenthood won't make itr harder to get abortions! Thanks for clearing that up. Also... is there a special clinic for men's health with government funding? Why are we funding women's health?

Quotation marks are for when you are quoting someone verbatim.

You are inventing stuff. Trump isn't boasting about having to fight women off. He's not claiming women can't keep their hands off him. He's claiming the opposite, that he can't keep his hands off women:andHe's boasting about being able to get away with forcing himself on women.

No, I'm saying wars are the same thing in some people's minds as abortion is in some Christian minds. Some people are horrified that Obama used their tax dollars to fund rebels in Syria claiming those rebels are a hairsbreadth away from being terrorists, and increasing the opposition to Assad only made the Russians bomb more civilians, killing women and children. Do we need to be involved in Syria? Did we need to be involved in Viet nam? Did we need to invade Iraq a second time? I knew some people who were extremely pissed we invaded the first time: killing people over oil. You had better take a look at how much of your tax dollar is spent killing people who may not have had to be killed for us to be OK. Then come back and talk about people being forced to pay for abortions. US citizens are routinely forced to pay for killing.

Name anything tax dollars are spent on and there's someone who objects. Anti-abortionists are not special in that sense. You are claiming they are, that abortion is different than all the other objections. How is it different from getting Syrians shot and blown up? How many innocent civilians have been killed by isis due to the US backed attempt to retake Mosul? Why should US citizens have paid for the My Lai massacre?

-wiki

Anyway, see Astronuc's post about how much Planned Parenthood money actually goes to abortions. That's not their thing. Their main goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent the spread of STD's by education.

scare quotes
noun

1. quotation marks used around a word or phrase when they are not required, thereby eliciting attention or doubts.

 

[Astronuc]

Also... is there a special clinic for men's health with government funding?

Planned Parenthood, which is for those who cannot afford a regular doctor or specialist.

Part of Planned Parenthood's mission is to reduce or eliminate unwanted pregnancy, so the number of abortions decreases.

 

[russ_watters]

Planned Parenthood, which is for those who cannot afford a regular doctor or specialist.

That didn't answer the question.

Look, I'm pro choice and in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, but there is a lot of false sexism used in many arguments about it. No one is ever heard saying "No woman should have a say over my prostate health!", but it is practically a mantra in womens' health arguments. My level of sympathy for people who need my vote drops substantially when they try to exclude me from the conversation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No one is ever heard saying "No woman should have a say over my prostate health", but it is practically a mantra in womens' health arguments. My level of sympathy for people who need my vote drops substantially when they try to exclude me from the conversation.

When has prostate health been a controversial topic or been threatened? When have men as a group been systematically oppressed?

 

[Astronuc]

That didn't answer the question.

Sure it does.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/men

And they provide prenatal care - https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/prenatal-care

The critics of abortion emphasize 'federal taxes' paying for abortion, which is not the case. Or they emphasize 'women's health care', when in fact, PP provides health care to men as well. Clearly PP provides a range of services to families, who cannot afford healthcare like those with health insurance. According to PP, "For millions of women, Medicaid could make the difference between getting access to cancer screenings and birth control, or going without. Studies have shown that women with Medicaid coverage are more likely than uninsured women to have received a Pap test in the last two years."

I do agree that there is a lot of heated rhetoric on the issue of PP.

 

[russ_watters]

When has prostate health been a controversial topic or been threatened?

I honestly don't know if prostate exams/care is covered by normal insurance, but I suspect it is because it is preventative. Perhaps a better example would be vasectomies, which google tells me are covered by most, but not all insurance programs.

When have men as a group been systematically oppressed?

I don't see how that relates to my question, except... I sure hope you are not saying that if one group is oppressed at one time in their history, then later on other groups should lose their right to vote?

Guys, we live in a democracy. Everyone over 18 who is not a felon gets a vote. You cannot exclude a person from discussion/voting about an issue based on their sex (or race, for that matter).

 

[russ_watters]

Sure it does.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/men

Sorry, I misread your response and also didn't realize their men's reproductive services were so extensive...

...but this then beggs the question of even the accuracy of the mantra that men should have no say in the reproductive health of women: since Planned Parenthood services men, then men have a direct interest in whether or not it should be funded. Perhaps if women instead of trying to exclude men from the conversation included them and emphasized that it serves both, that would help the cause.

 

[Astronuc]

...but this then beggs the question of even the accuracy of the mantra that men should have no say in the reproductive health of women: since Planned Parenthood services men, then men have a direct interest in whether or not it should be funded. Perhaps if women instead of trying to exclude men from the conversation included them and emphasized that it serves both, that would help the cause.

I think there are plenty of women who would like to have that conversation.

We seem to live in a world in which 'the conversation' gets overwhelmed by conflicting ideologies or perspectives, e.g., democrat vs republican, or right vs left, or labor vs management, theist vs atheist, something vs nonsomething or alt-something.

United we stand, divided we fall/fail.

 

[Evo]

I think there are plenty of women who would like to have that conversation.

We seem to live in a world in which 'the conversation' gets overwhelmed by conflicting ideologies or perspectives, e.g., democrat vs republican, or right vs left, or labor vs management, theist vs atheist, something vs nonsomething or alt-something.

United we stand, divided we fall/fail.

There are many states that are making it impossible for women to get abortions, I do not want to make this an abortion thread, but but this needs to be shown . This is what is happening.

Texas lawmaker who introduced bill criminalizing abortion: Women should be more ‘personally responsible’ for sex

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-gop-lawmaker-who-introduced-anti-abortion-bill-women-should-be-more-personally-responsible-for-sex-170549535.html

Texas Lawmaker: Jail Time For Abortions Would Make Women ‘More Personally Responsible’ For Sex

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abortion-abolition-bill-texas_us_5887aad1e4b0b481c76b6543

The platform also defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and homosexuality as “a chosen behavior,” and it calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

 

[john101]

if men could get pregnant abortions would be had at macdonalds without appointments and contraception dispensed in gumball machines

re men and living longer. The solution is stronger unions and better workplace safety.

 

[Evo]

if men could get pregnant abortions would be had at macdonalds without appointments and contraception dispensed in gumball machines

re men and living longer.

The solution is stronger unions and better workplace safety.

Not sure what that means.

 

[john101]

It means I make an assumption about why men have a lower life expectancy in response to someone complaining that men have shorter lives than women.

I don't know why men live shorter lives. However, people uniting to improve conditions, whatever that may be, is a good idea.

 

[Evo]

It means I make an assumption about why men have a lower life expectancy in response to someone complaining that men have shorter lives than women.

I don't know why men live shorter lives. However, people uniting to improve conditions, whatever that may be, is a good idea.

Not much shorter, despite doing much more foolish things in their younger years (no sources will be furnished)

According to data compiled by the Social Security Administration:

• A man reaching age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 84.3.
• A woman turning age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 86.6.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Look, I'm pro choice and in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, but there is a lot of false sexism used in many arguments about it. No one is ever heard saying "No woman should have a say over my prostate health!", but it is practically a mantra in womens' health arguments. My level of sympathy for people who need my vote drops substantially when they try to exclude me from the conversation.

When has prostate health been a controversial topic or been threatened? When have men as a group been systematically oppressed?

I think a better question for Russ is when have women tried to push for legislation requiring men to have regular prostate exams? Or anything similar. I have never felt any need to tell women to get their laws off my body because I haven't ever seen them trying to put any laws on it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/female-legislators-unveil-male-ejaculation-bill/

 

[russ_watters]

I think a better question for Russ is when have women tried to push for legislation requiring men to have regular prostate exams? Or anything similar. I have never felt any need to tell women to get their laws off my body because I haven't ever seen them trying to put any laws on it.

It's the same issue: no, in a democracy, you can't say that. Everyone gets a vote and "get your laws off my body" doesn't work. In fact, it is a sexist statement itself, saying that men shouldn't be allowed to vote!

Not specifically about sexism, but there are already laws about personal conduct that not everyone agrees with, but everyone has to follow. Seat belt laws, product safety laws, parenting laws, drug laws, etc.

Not that i think it is necessarily relevant, but there are anti-men-sexist laws or practices out there, specifically regarding reproduction and child care, especially having to do with divorce. Divorce proceedings are slanted toward women, particularly when it comes to custody and money. And regarding abortion itself, men (fathers, I mean) already have no say in whether women get an abortion or whether the men have to pay for the child care. A woman who chooses to have an abortion because she's not ready to have kids is pragmatic and caring. A man who expresses the same sentiment is a sexist and potential deadbeat. While some women say "get your laws of my body", they are saying it in the context of defending a current law that is already biased in their favor!

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's the same issue: no, in a democracy, you can't say that.

It is precisely because it is a democracy that you can say that. You are permitted to object to any law you find objectionable and seek to get it changed.

You are equally permitted to object to proposed laws, and, the striking down of laws that are in place that you approve of. "Get your laws off my body," is a perfectly good objection to a law you find too invasive in that regard: too invasive in controlling what you do with your body.

Look, I'm pro choice and in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, but there is a lot of false sexism used in many arguments about it.

Do you mean 'false allegations of sexism?' I'm not aware of anything that could be called, "false sexism."

No one is ever heard saying "No woman should have a say over my prostate health!", but it is practically a mantra in womens' health arguments.

You really need to answer the question of whether or not you have found female lawmakers to be making laws about your prostate health, or anything similar. When you admit they have not been, then you will have the explanation for why "No one is ever heard saying 'No woman should have a say over my prostate health!' "

 

[russ_watters]

It is precisely because it is a democracy that you can say that. You are permitted to object to any law you find objectionable and seek to get it changed.

You read the first part too literally and missed the second, zooby. It wasn't a statement about freedom of speech it was a statement about democracy itself: about voting. In a democracy, everyone who isn't a criminal or too young gets a vote. So the statement that men should not have a vote is undemocratic in the most basic way.

Do you mean 'false allegations of sexism?' I'm not aware of anything that could be called, "false sexism."

That's what those signs/slogans are, referred to above. They are literally false statements about how democracy works, made to sound like they are fighting against sexism. Essentially, the claim is that it is sexist for men to write/vote on laws about women, and therefore men should not be allowed to vote on such laws. Again, that is literally not how democracy works. Hopefully you are aware of it on the signs women carry at marches, but people have also literally said those things about/to legistlators:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/19/4-problems-with-telling-men-to-shut-up-on-womens-issues/

You really need to answer the question of whether or not you have found female lawmakers to be making laws about your prostate health, or anything similar. When you admit they have not been, then you will have the explanation for why "No one is ever heard saying 'No woman should have a say over my prostate health!' "

Huh? Open your mind to it: As the link says, the possibilities and absurdities are endless. Even if there weren't a specific example of exactly that (Barbra Boxter; prostate cancer) in the link above (I almost wish there wasn't), you can't possibly be unaware of the many examples I gave previously about types of laws that impact men. It is quite a deep rabbit hole the article goes down with the logic. Indeed, any law that has a "women only" component has a corresponding male impact, even if it is only money. For example: if men can't vote about abortion/contraception, then women shouldn't be able to vote about making men pay for those things that they have nothing to do with. Right next to a woman holding a sign that says "get your laws of my body" a man should hold up a sign that says "fine: then get your body off my money". Fair trade?

That makes the issue of women saying men shouldn't vote on female issues even worse: It isn't just anti-democratic and sexist, it is also biologically false, economically exploitive and hypocritical.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Here is the question I would ask the American members of this forum. Why do you think that the strongest push to defund Planned Parenthood (by which I mean to cut off federal or state funding to Planned Parenthood) comes from the Republican Party, and more specifically from white, conservative, male Republicans? And why specifically Planned Parenthood?

Are they just opposed to the very idea of providing birth control services, at least on the public dime (which isn't even their sole mission anyways, as both their website and several posts here reveal), or is it solely because of their opposition to abortion (again, which isn't even the sole or even primary service they provide)?

 

[Astronuc]

Are they just opposed to the very idea of providing birth control services, at least on the public dime (which isn't even their sole mission anyways, as both their website and several posts here reveal), or is it solely because of their opposition to abortion (again, which isn't even the sole or even primary service they provide)?

There are various reasons among: some don't want to their taxes to spent supporting PP, some oppose birth control (contraception), and others oppose abortion. Some perhaps equate PP with feminism, to which they object.

 

[bob012345]

Women’s Marches: Millions of protesters around the country vow to resist Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4def62-dfdf-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html

I must say I am really surprised (in a good way) to see such massive numbers in the Women's March in DC and all over the world (100k in just my small state capitol). There are marches in what must be thousands of sister cities and all the photos I've seen show impressive numbers. Could this start a "Women's Spring"?

My goal for this thread is to discuss what might come from the start of the movement for Women's rights (and marginalized groups) in general. Also how Trump will deal with this pressure.

ps. the election is over, so let's cut the heat out of our words and try to be analytical.

But to answer your question, what pressure? It's laughable, how many of these people actually voted last November? If they had Hillary would be president now. They have no power but to make noise.

 

[Astronuc]

It's laughable, how many of these people actually voted last November?

Probably most voted, and they will vote again.

 

[bob012345]

Here is the question I would ask the American members of this forum. Why do you think that the strongest push to defund Planned Parenthood (by which I mean to cut off federal or state funding to Planned Parenthood) comes from the Republican Party, and more specifically from white, conservative, male Republicans? And why specifically Planned Parenthood?

Are they just opposed to the very idea of providing birth control services, at least on the public dime (which isn't even their sole mission anyways, as both their website and several posts here reveal), or is it solely because of their opposition to abortion (again, which isn't even the sole or even primary service they provide)?

Mainly abortion but also distrust that non abortion funds will get diverted. There is also a belief that providing birth control services implies a morally neutral view on sexual behavior which is counter to Conservative values. Planned Parenthood is an anathema to many Conservatives. Here, Trump is unusual in that he praised the non-abortion aspect of PP before the election.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Mainly abortion but also distrust that non abortion funds will get diverted. There is also a belief that providing birth control services implies a morally neutral view on sexual behavior which is counter to Conservative values. Planned Parenthood is an anathema to many Conservatives.
Here, Trump is unusual in that he praised the non-abortion aspect of PP before the election.

You see, that is the thing that gets to me about conservative legislators -- why do they feel that it is the job of the government to arbitrate morality, particularly on sexual morality? To quote Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (father of the current prime minister), "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

 

[russ_watters]

Here is the question I would ask the American members of this forum. Why do you think that the strongest push to defund Planned Parenthood (by which I mean to cut off federal or state funding to Planned Parenthood) comes from the Republican Party, and more specifically from white, conservative, male Republicans? [snip]

Are they just opposed to the very idea of providing birth control services, at least on the public dime (which isn't even their sole mission anyways, as both their website and several posts here reveal), or is it solely because of their opposition to abortion (again, which isn't even the sole or even primary service they provide)?

As far as I can tell, it is almost exclusively an abortion issue. And it isn't just about providing or funding for abortions; pro-life people don't like that Planned Parenthood even talks about abortions. That's why separating funding wouldn't solve "the problem" for pro lifers and wouldn't change their opposition to PP.

And why specifically Planned Parenthood?

It's big.

You see, that is the thing that gets to me about conservative legislators -- why do they feel that it is the job of the government to arbitrate morality, particularly on sexual morality? To quote Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (father of the current prime minister), "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

:boggle: Most of what legislators from all sides do is legislate morality. It's a core function of government. Everything that falls under criminal law is about morality, from murder to insider trading. Even the removal of legislation on morality is legislating morality. Liberal legislators (and liberal people) don't actually oppose legislating morality, they just support legislating a different (less strict) morality than conservatives.

And that is such a thoughtless/BS slogan (as most soundybte-ready slogans are): If a guy was carving-up his girlfriend in their bedroom or running a Ponzi scheme from his laptop while in bed, I'm pretty sure Trudeau would care.

 

[bob012345]

Well,

You see, that is the thing that gets to me about conservative legislators -- why do they feel that it is the job of the government to arbitrate morality, particularly on sexual morality? To quote Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (father of the current prime minister), "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Well, do you try to use government to promote your ideas about social values and justice? I think they believe they are working for the overall good of society, not just because they want to control people's sexual behavior.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Well,

Well, do you try to use government to promote your ideas about social values and justice? I think they believe they are working for the overall good of society, not just because they want to control people's sexual behavior.

I want the government to promote ideas that can tangibly improve the lives of the people the government is trying to represent (e.g. ending discrimination against minority ethnic groups, promoting economic development, etc.) which is undeniably for the overall good of society. Social conservatives are frankly wrong to believe that controlling sexual behaviour in the absence of science-based proper sex education that is free of religious rhetoric is to the overall benefit of society.

Again, that's my view on this topic.

 

[bob012345]

I want the government to promote ideas that can tangibly improve the lives of the people the government is trying to represent (e.g. ending discrimination against minority ethnic groups, promoting economic development, etc.) which is undeniably for the overall good of society. Social conservatives are frankly wrong to believe that controlling sexual behaviour in the absence of science-based proper sex education that is free of religious rhetoric is to the overall benefit of society.

Again, that's my view on this topic.

Many non-religious Conservatives would argue the state should promote abstention from casual sex.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Many non-religious Conservatives would argue the state should promote abstention from casual sex.

I'm sure many would, but promotion of abstinence is frankly a lost cause. People are going to have sex one way or the other (as they have for as long as humans have existed on this planet), and IMHO, conservatives should give up on this battle.

The sensible thing is for the state to provide (a) children with comprehensive sex education, so that they will grow up and be able to make sensible decisions with respect to sexual health, and (b) provide ready access to birth control. Planned Parenthood, even though it is not a part of the state, provides (b) and also has contributed to (a), and should continue to do so.

Otherwise, the state has no place in legislating sexual morality.

[I should also add that by defunding Planned Parenthood, the government is also potentially limiting the options available for married women and men in terms of access to birth control. ]

 

[russ_watters]

I want the government to promote ideas that can tangibly improve the lives of the people the government is trying to represent (e.g. ending discrimination against minority ethnic groups, promoting economic development, etc.) which is undeniably for the overall good of society.

And don't you agree that that's a moral imperative?

Social conservatives are frankly wrong to believe that controlling sexual behaviour in the absence of science-based proper sex education that is free of religious rhetoric is to the overall benefit of society.

Well, your opinion and theirs, but still: don't you agree that those things are issues of morality either way?
[note: this isn't a place to argue your personal view of law/morality. But we can discuss the framing of the question.]

Otherwise, the state has no place in legislating sexual morality.

"Otherwise". So really, you recognize that you are proposing legislations on morality, so it isn't that "the state should not legislate morality", it's that the state should legislate morality the way you see it. That's fine, but you should not frame the question disingenuously.

 

[bob012345]

I'm sure many would, but promotion of abstinence is frankly a lost cause. People are going to have sex one way or the other (as they have for as long as humans have existed on this planet), and IMHO, conservatives should give up on this battle.

The sensible thing is for the state to provide (a) children with comprehensive sex education, so that they will grow up and be able to make sensible decisions with respect to sexual health, and (b) provide ready access to birth control. Planned Parenthood, even though it is not a part of the state, provides (b) and also has contributed to (a), and should continue to do so.

Otherwise, the state has no place in legislating sexual morality.

[I should also add that by defunding Planned Parenthood, the government is also potentially limiting the options available for married women and men in terms of access to birth control. ]

What do you mean by 'one way or another'? People can and many do control themselves with regards to sexual partners. But the greater culture puts young people at a disadvantage by propagating the illusion that there is nothing wrong with casual sex. Morality and moral codes, religious or not, were not invented in Western Christian cultures. Many cultures are shocked by the Western looseness of sexuality.

 

[StatGuy2000]

And don't you agree that that's a moral imperative?

It depends on what you mean by "moral imperative". From my vantage point, I see it as a matter of self-interest -- if a (democratic) government promotes ideas that are based on rationality and reason and that tangibly improves the lives of people as I mentioned above, that would mean that (a) they are far more likely to collect more tax revenue (due to greater economic growth and thus more tax revenues flowing into government coffers), and (b) the government is more likely to stay in power by being re-elected.

Well, your opinion and theirs, but still: don't you agree that those things are issues of morality either way?
[note: this isn't a place to argue your personal view of law/morality. But we can discuss the framing of the question.]

I see it as an issue of effective versus ineffective policy; I don't particularly like the very mention of "morality" in the context of laws and government.

"Otherwise". So really, you recognize that you are proposing legislations on morality, so it isn't that "the state should not legislate morality", it's that the state should legislate morality the way you see it. That's fine, but you should not frame the question disingenuously.

I'm afraid you are misrepresenting my stance on the question involved. I see it as the following: it is not the purpose of the state to legislate or set laws on individual sexual behaviour. I see (consensual) sexuality as inherently a private matter between individuals or groups of individuals, and the state has no business in regulating or legislating on this matter, with the obvious exception of instances of non-consent.

What is the state's business is ensuring equitable access to public health for all its citizens.

 

[StatGuy2000]

What do you mean by 'one way or another'? People can and many do control themselves with regards to sexual partners. But the greater culture puts young people at a disadvantage by propagating the illusion that there is nothing wrong with casual sex. Morality and moral codes, religious or not, were not invented in Western Christian cultures. Many cultures are shocked by the Western looseness of sexuality.

Let me disclose up front that I see nothing wrong at all with casual sex, so long as the sexual activity is safe and consensual. I see sexuality as fundamentally a natural and healthy thing for people to engage in, and I don't see any real benefit in society to try to bottle up or repress it. Again, that's my views on this.

I should also note that American culture, from my viewpoint, is frankly contradictory, if not outright hypocritical, with respect to sexuality overall.

 

[russ_watters]

I see it as an issue of effective versus ineffective policy; I don't particularly like the very mention of "morality" in the context of laws and government.
...
What is the state's business is ensuring equitable access to public health for all its citizens.

What it appears to me is that you are using the language and definition of "morality" while trying to avoid using the word itself. Let me ask you this: is murder immoral?

 

[zoobyshoe]

:boggle: Most of what legislators from all sides do is legislate morality. It's a core function of government. Everything that falls under criminal law is about morality, from murder to insider trading. Even the removal of legislation on morality is legislating morality. Liberal legislators (and liberal people) don't actually oppose legislating morality, they just support legislating a different (less strict) morality than conservatives.

I'm working on a response to your last post to me, but I want to address what you say here right away. Laws are not about morality, and shouldn't be, due to the separation of church and state. Laws are about maintaining order. The law against murder, for example, is purely practical. There is nothing in it that requires you to hold human life sacred, or to even have any moral ideas about human life at all. It merely requires that you not kill anyone. Insider trading is the same: you are not required to have any moral qualms about taking unfair advantage of knowledge others don't have. All that is required is that you don't engage in insider trading.

You must be aware of this crazy lawsuit from a couple years ago:

http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/nebraska-woman-sues-every-homosexual-on-the-planet

It was dismissed because courts and lawmakers aren't in the business of deciding what is or isn't sinful. In other words, they don't legislate morality.

 

[StatGuy2000]

What it appears to me is that you are using the language and definition of "morality" while trying to avoid using the word itself. Let me ask you this: is murder immoral?

Your question is context-dependent. If someone pre-meditatively kills an individual, then it is certainly illegal (as killing people is harmful to public safety and basic order if permitted), but there are circumstances when killing people is justified (for example, in the case of self-defense where someone's life is in danger otherwise).

And as zoobyshoe has already posted in post #98, laws are not about morality, it is about maintaining order within society.

 

[russ_watters]

If someone pre-meditatively kills an individual, then it is certainly illegal ...

You didn't answer my question. I know murder is illegal (by definition): I asked if you think murder is immoral.

Definition/word switch problem notwithstanding: I used the word "murder" and you substituted the word "kill". There is no context confusion: I meant murder.