If Republican judges can ban Mifepristone, then why can't judges ban Viagra, which has seen more deaths and is more dangerous? Is this not serious enough to fight for?
No, because you're saying that women don't really care about having satisfying sex with a man, that we merely tolerate it, and it's just a juvenile joke of a solution to a very grave problem.
The fight, which is about government overreach in our bedrooms and our bodies, deserves better than to be treated so flippantly.
If you had read your Aristophanes, you would know that the women of ancient Greece were fed up with the ongoing war among the greek states and the slaughter of their male kinfolk, and one of them, Lysistrata, convinces the women of all the involved states to go on a sex strike, withholding sex from their men until they agree to negotiations for peace.
It was written as a comedy, but with a very serious subject, ending a war. It’s not that the women didn’t enjoy sex, it’s that they were willing to temporarily sacrifice their pleasure for a very important cause.
On the other hand, you don’t seem to think the present situation is worth a sacrifice.
Also, I am afraid the Creator (if there is one) neglected to grace you with a sense of irony or a sense of humour, which, when used effectively, can enhance the seriousness of a situation, not diminish it. May I respectfully suggest a book to read? “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut was an American soldier during WWII who was captured by the Germans and in prisoned in Dresden. He was a witness to what was probably the most horrific event to a city in that war except for the 2 atomic bombs dropped in Japan. Dresden was fire-bombed by the Allies and the city literally burned up. It took Vonnegut years to assimilate this personal history and write it down. The book was published in 1969, I believe. He chose to use irony and fantasy to try to explain what happened, and the book is much more effective for it than if he had just written a straight account.
Sorry, I went off subject. but not so much. I was not making “a juvenile joke” or taking the fight “so flippantly”. That is your interpretation and you are welcome to it.
How arrogant. And judgmental. My sense of humor is not up for discussion, nor what books I read. Criticism of one's ideas is fair, but personal attacks are not.
You commented, I responded. If you don't like people criticizing your comments, don't post them.
“ it's just a juvenile joke of a solution to a very grave problem.
The fight, which is about government overreach in our bedrooms and our bodies, deserves better than to be treated so flippantly.”
Who posted the first personal attacks?
I responded but it didn’t appear as a response but a further comment way down the thread so I will repost it here.
Consider: when I was a teenager not only was abortion strictly illegal, the birth control pill hadn't been invented yet. And I had absolutely no desire to either get married or have children. And you don't think I take these matters seriously enough?
My best friend almost died from complications from an illegal abortion in this period.
I may be beyond the pale as I no longer have to worry about personal abortion at my age, but don’t preach to me about the seriousness of the issue.
This is one of the most powerful things I've read on just why, why, why abortion is not just a single issue but one whose ramifications extend far and wide. Thank you.
"It’s an overreach so stunning it’s almost impossible to believe it’s happening. It’s embarrassing; it’s a shocking act of lawlessness from a judge brazenly abusing his power." It's also the first time a court has second-guessed the FDA and deemed it appropriate to rule that a drug should be taken off the market. The overreach is indeed stunning.
I completely agree this is about control but here's my take on what's behind the need to control. Marriage prospects for working class men have declined as women now have alternatives to a bad marriage of convenience. The revanchist laws being enacted across red states are intended to shore up the wounded masculinity of working class men. If I cannot attract a mate I will enlist the state in my failed romantic enterprise. The male ego is fragile in all its class incarnations but men in the professional managerial class have incomes that still make them attractive as mates. Working class men not so much.
Good grief. The "fragile male ego" crap. And gee whiz, am I back in Egypt where men who are "working class" pine for virgin brides because sex outside of marriage is a sin? I doubt American men resent not being able to get married, and most couples know there's no such thing as a one-income marriage.
I doubt it's about wounded masculinity for most of them, but their fear of women and immigrants pushing them out of their crappy working class jobs.
Yes, I watch that situation in China with interest. Tidal waves of testosterone will have a ripple effect.
In this country, I think you're correct that this is not solely a class issue but my brief is what's driving fascism at base is the waning of social status for working class people. For years elites drifted away from the social contract and in the process began to think of themselves as different qualitatively from others. The GOP has taken that ball and run with it but, again, there is no clear way to create status. It must be bestowed by others and that's a bridge too far for this country.
Consider: when I was a teenager not only was abortion strictly illegal, the birth control pill hadn't been invented yet. And I had absolutely no desire to either get married or have children. And you don't think I take these matters seriously enough?
Reading the comments above, and Jill's article, I think all these motivations can come into play. But bottom line is that, in this day and age, the limits the right wants to impose on women, and in the long run all of us, is fascist. F:*#% that !!!!!!!!
A question. You often hear, when trying to find the real culprit, that you should follow the money trail. In the attack on reproductive rights, is their a money trail? Or is that a red herring?
It doesn't matter. It wasn't a trick question. Where some people see left and right. I see class struggle. I'm not standing up for the workin' man's point of view. I'm trying to parse the rock in their shoe. And with regard to this issue I think their unhappiness stems from the lack of social status needed to find a mate. Since we can't legislate social status the GOP coughs up these punishing laws whose ultimate purpose is to tether women to men. Hence control....
In the US there is even a name now for men who can’t find a mate. They call themselves “incels”, which I suppose means involuntarily celibate. There has never been such a self-organised group before, far as I know. And they hate women because they can’t seem to attract them. I don’t think this is a class issue because incels can be of any social class, not necessarily working class or poor.
Throughout history men and women have mated and raised families, poor as well as rich. Farmers find a wife as well as bankers. It isn’t a social class issue - or at least hasn’t been before now. Now, in most “civilised” countries women are graduating from universities in greater number and are to be found in most types of work, including physical labour which previously favoured stronger men, due to automation and machinery, hence they can make their own living and often don’t need a man for economic reasons, so they can be more picky than in previous centuries. And more women, at least in the US and Europe, are choosing to marry later or not to marry at all.
On the other hand a curious phenomenon is happening, particularly in countries where boy children are more preferable than girls, like China. The Chinese one child law (until recently) meant that, in the age of legal and safe abortion, couples have often chosen to have a boy child and aborted girls. So now, ironically, there is a dearth of young women in China and men can’t find a wife because there are simply not enough women to go around. Talk about irony..
Once again, right on...we are still cavemen, living in the Middle Ages with modern technology. I don't understand any of this, except in the idea that men are supposed to be in control of women's lives...what a bunch of crap...
Look. GOP is going for insane judicial responses. Nobody till now has questioned the official US drug testing results. So, if the GOP is going there, why not the Dems, too.
You are absolutely right and the article is well articulated. Perhaps it is time to
a) get a judge to ban Viagra.
b) Lysistrata anyone?
Perhaps it's time to take this issue more seriously than that.
If Republican judges can ban Mifepristone, then why can't judges ban Viagra, which has seen more deaths and is more dangerous? Is this not serious enough to fight for?
No, because you're saying that women don't really care about having satisfying sex with a man, that we merely tolerate it, and it's just a juvenile joke of a solution to a very grave problem.
The fight, which is about government overreach in our bedrooms and our bodies, deserves better than to be treated so flippantly.
If you had read your Aristophanes, you would know that the women of ancient Greece were fed up with the ongoing war among the greek states and the slaughter of their male kinfolk, and one of them, Lysistrata, convinces the women of all the involved states to go on a sex strike, withholding sex from their men until they agree to negotiations for peace.
It was written as a comedy, but with a very serious subject, ending a war. It’s not that the women didn’t enjoy sex, it’s that they were willing to temporarily sacrifice their pleasure for a very important cause.
On the other hand, you don’t seem to think the present situation is worth a sacrifice.
Also, I am afraid the Creator (if there is one) neglected to grace you with a sense of irony or a sense of humour, which, when used effectively, can enhance the seriousness of a situation, not diminish it. May I respectfully suggest a book to read? “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut was an American soldier during WWII who was captured by the Germans and in prisoned in Dresden. He was a witness to what was probably the most horrific event to a city in that war except for the 2 atomic bombs dropped in Japan. Dresden was fire-bombed by the Allies and the city literally burned up. It took Vonnegut years to assimilate this personal history and write it down. The book was published in 1969, I believe. He chose to use irony and fantasy to try to explain what happened, and the book is much more effective for it than if he had just written a straight account.
Sorry, I went off subject. but not so much. I was not making “a juvenile joke” or taking the fight “so flippantly”. That is your interpretation and you are welcome to it.
How arrogant. And judgmental. My sense of humor is not up for discussion, nor what books I read. Criticism of one's ideas is fair, but personal attacks are not.
You commented, I responded. If you don't like people criticizing your comments, don't post them.
“ it's just a juvenile joke of a solution to a very grave problem.
The fight, which is about government overreach in our bedrooms and our bodies, deserves better than to be treated so flippantly.”
Who posted the first personal attacks?
I responded but it didn’t appear as a response but a further comment way down the thread so I will repost it here.
Consider: when I was a teenager not only was abortion strictly illegal, the birth control pill hadn't been invented yet. And I had absolutely no desire to either get married or have children. And you don't think I take these matters seriously enough?
My best friend almost died from complications from an illegal abortion in this period.
I may be beyond the pale as I no longer have to worry about personal abortion at my age, but don’t preach to me about the seriousness of the issue.
As someone elsewhere memed, “I’ve come to a point in my life where I need a stronger word than ‘fuck’.”
This is one of the most powerful things I've read on just why, why, why abortion is not just a single issue but one whose ramifications extend far and wide. Thank you.
"It’s an overreach so stunning it’s almost impossible to believe it’s happening. It’s embarrassing; it’s a shocking act of lawlessness from a judge brazenly abusing his power." It's also the first time a court has second-guessed the FDA and deemed it appropriate to rule that a drug should be taken off the market. The overreach is indeed stunning.
I completely agree this is about control but here's my take on what's behind the need to control. Marriage prospects for working class men have declined as women now have alternatives to a bad marriage of convenience. The revanchist laws being enacted across red states are intended to shore up the wounded masculinity of working class men. If I cannot attract a mate I will enlist the state in my failed romantic enterprise. The male ego is fragile in all its class incarnations but men in the professional managerial class have incomes that still make them attractive as mates. Working class men not so much.
Good grief. The "fragile male ego" crap. And gee whiz, am I back in Egypt where men who are "working class" pine for virgin brides because sex outside of marriage is a sin? I doubt American men resent not being able to get married, and most couples know there's no such thing as a one-income marriage.
I doubt it's about wounded masculinity for most of them, but their fear of women and immigrants pushing them out of their crappy working class jobs.
I'm curious as to whether you see this issue (control of women) has any kind of class dimension to it. How do you account for it in your view.
I don't understand the question.
Yes, I watch that situation in China with interest. Tidal waves of testosterone will have a ripple effect.
In this country, I think you're correct that this is not solely a class issue but my brief is what's driving fascism at base is the waning of social status for working class people. For years elites drifted away from the social contract and in the process began to think of themselves as different qualitatively from others. The GOP has taken that ball and run with it but, again, there is no clear way to create status. It must be bestowed by others and that's a bridge too far for this country.
It's so painful to contemplate. Thanks for insisting on looking and speaking ... all of us need to be doing.
men are a nuisance :(
Same could be said for you.
Consider: when I was a teenager not only was abortion strictly illegal, the birth control pill hadn't been invented yet. And I had absolutely no desire to either get married or have children. And you don't think I take these matters seriously enough?
Reading the comments above, and Jill's article, I think all these motivations can come into play. But bottom line is that, in this day and age, the limits the right wants to impose on women, and in the long run all of us, is fascist. F:*#% that !!!!!!!!
A question. You often hear, when trying to find the real culprit, that you should follow the money trail. In the attack on reproductive rights, is their a money trail? Or is that a red herring?
Ask Justice Thomas and his dear friend Harlan Crow!
Not to mention this man actually resembles Adolf Hitler
It doesn't matter. It wasn't a trick question. Where some people see left and right. I see class struggle. I'm not standing up for the workin' man's point of view. I'm trying to parse the rock in their shoe. And with regard to this issue I think their unhappiness stems from the lack of social status needed to find a mate. Since we can't legislate social status the GOP coughs up these punishing laws whose ultimate purpose is to tether women to men. Hence control....
I hope this explains how I understand this.
In the US there is even a name now for men who can’t find a mate. They call themselves “incels”, which I suppose means involuntarily celibate. There has never been such a self-organised group before, far as I know. And they hate women because they can’t seem to attract them. I don’t think this is a class issue because incels can be of any social class, not necessarily working class or poor.
Throughout history men and women have mated and raised families, poor as well as rich. Farmers find a wife as well as bankers. It isn’t a social class issue - or at least hasn’t been before now. Now, in most “civilised” countries women are graduating from universities in greater number and are to be found in most types of work, including physical labour which previously favoured stronger men, due to automation and machinery, hence they can make their own living and often don’t need a man for economic reasons, so they can be more picky than in previous centuries. And more women, at least in the US and Europe, are choosing to marry later or not to marry at all.
On the other hand a curious phenomenon is happening, particularly in countries where boy children are more preferable than girls, like China. The Chinese one child law (until recently) meant that, in the age of legal and safe abortion, couples have often chosen to have a boy child and aborted girls. So now, ironically, there is a dearth of young women in China and men can’t find a wife because there are simply not enough women to go around. Talk about irony..
Once again, right on...we are still cavemen, living in the Middle Ages with modern technology. I don't understand any of this, except in the idea that men are supposed to be in control of women's lives...what a bunch of crap...
Look. GOP is going for insane judicial responses. Nobody till now has questioned the official US drug testing results. So, if the GOP is going there, why not the Dems, too.