View Poll Results: Is there a War on Women?

Voters
146. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    34 23.29%
  • No

    80 54.79%
  • Yes and No

    15 10.27%
  • Something else

    17 11.64%
Page 45 of 53 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 529

Thread: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

  1. #441
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    This is how (Link HERE) women are treated in other countries. Our women get bitchy because they have to PAY for their birth control.

    Puleeze.
    What's funny is I don't have a flipping problem with that necrophilia consideration - not my cup of tea . . . but if we donate parts of our bodies so other people can live then why don't we let the spouse have one last 'go' ?

    I think that's a silly example to make towards your point you have. . . . in other countries women are treated like property and sold into sex slavery - something like that would have really made sense. But a post-mortem sex law?

    You know - my insurance covered birth control among other things - AND my husband's prescription (get this) IBUPROFEN. . . . which is funny as hell in contrast to the 'issue'
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  2. #442
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    What's funny is I don't have a flipping problem with that necrophilia consideration - not my cup of tea . . . but if we donate parts of our bodies so other people can live then why don't we let the spouse have one last 'go' ?

    I think that's a silly example to make towards your point you have. . . . in other countries women are treated like property and sold into sex slavery - something like that would have really made sense. But a post-mortem sex law?

    You know - my insurance covered birth control among other things - AND my husband's prescription (get this) IBUPROFEN. . . . which is funny as hell in contrast to the 'issue'
    ALSO IN the article:
    It will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 and the ridding of women's rights of getting education and employment.
    From the ashes.

  3. #443
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    It is a false argument because as you concede, a zygote is not a citizen it does not have rights until it reaches "viability".
    It's determined that under the law, or more along the lines, case law at this time. That is true. However, people desiring a change in the law desire such because they believe that interpritation of the zygotes rights is incorrect and as such the state should be performing its rightful duties to protect the innocent....NOT that "Hey! Women shouldn't have control of their bodies".

    Again, simply because it is current law does not make it an absolute truth. Sorry...that's just a fact regardless if you like it or not. Whether or not a zygote should be considered something worthy of rights is entirely opinion based, and any law regarding it currently is simply representing the currently legally enforced law.

    Again, you avoided directly answering this before:
    Removing, restricting, undercutting the ability of a women to control what happens to her body....a choice a woman has had since Roe, is not an attack on females rights specifically?
    Because I'm not going to retype my stance I've already stated. A woman's ability to control what happens to her body does not supercede the right a child to live in these peoples opinion. That is no more "anti-women" then someone is "anti-child" for believing that when a child is in the zygote phase their rights should matter less than those of the womans. Essentially, in both cases, the individual is making an opinion call on which entities rights should be more important than the others when those rights come into conflict.

    It is obvious that you have not researched the Wisconsin law, SB 165, but for you I'll post the first paragraph:
    I didn't research it really since I just saw it from your link for the first time, but thanks for backing up what I said about it.

    "directing the secretary of workforce development to appoint a committee to study wage disparities between men and women and between minority group members and nonminority group members, and making an appropriation. "

    Hey look, like I said, the bill was not directly focused simply on women but on "women" AND "minority groups".

    But I don't even have to get into the details behind the legislation (that it is designed to eliminate the 23% pay differential between women and men in Wisconsin) to show that it was primarily a move to improve the status of women, all I have to do is to show the motivation of those who repealed it:
    So the guys dumb in rgards to why he thinks the disparity exits and appears to be misogynistic in some of his thinking. However, that's one of his reasonings for why he thinks studies showing the gap are wrong in their determination that its simply due to employer bias. In terms of motivation for why to repeal it he also stated from the same article:

    the fact that you’re innocent wouldn’t make you happy, because you have to show you’re innocent at some considerable time and expense,” says Republican state senator Glenn Grothman, a major driver of the repeal.

    Grothman says companies are being bombarded with false accusations of discrimination. “It’s an underreported problem, but a huge number of discrimination claims are baseless,” he says. “Most of them are filed by fired employees, and really today almost anybody is a protected class.” As a result, he says, many companies are forced to pay fired employees to go away. He argues that the Wisconsin law, which allowed for damages of up to $300,000, the same amount as in federal law, raised the cost of doing business in the state to intolerable levels
    I do like how you chatise me for ignoring something (that really was easily answerable based on what I had linked to in my response anyways which is why there was no point in responding...becuase I obviously disagreed with your premise) and yet I don't see links to some examples of significant national attempts at taking away atual women's rights issues or a few states other than just Wisconsin doing things like this.

  4. #444
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Looks like a lot of far-right sock puppets got their votes in.

    I don't like the word "war" - it's hyperbole. But there is definitely an anti-woman vibe on the right.

  5. #445
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's determined that under the law, or more along the lines, case law at this time. That is true. However, people desiring a change in the law desire such because they believe that interpritation of the zygotes rights is incorrect and as such the state should be performing its rightful duties to protect the innocent....NOT that "Hey! Women shouldn't have control of their bodies".Again, simply because it is current law does not make it an absolute truth. Sorry...that's just a fact regardless if you like it or not. Whether or not a zygote should be considered something worthy of rights is entirely opinion based, and any law regarding it currently is simply representing the currently legally enforced law.
    I know what the dance is now, I know that is how the conservative argument is being played, I don't need a recap from you. It is the back-door attempt to undercut a woman's rights by creating a whole new classification of a person, it will roll back the existing rights of a woman...the point of the argument.



    Because I'm not going to retype my stance I've already stated. A woman's ability to control what happens to her body does not supercede the right a child to live in these peoples opinion. That is no more "anti-women" then someone is "anti-child" for believing that when a child is in the zygote phase their rights should matter less than those of the womans. Essentially, in both cases, the individual is making an opinion call on which entities rights should be more important than the others when those rights come into conflict.
    Again, I don't care what opinion the cons have towards personhood of a zygote, a zygote is not a child, it is false and the turning back of established birth control laws is an infringement of current rights, the main point that you continue to dance around. If it is infringing on the rights of a woman, it is an attack upon her rights, there are no two ways about it.



    I didn't research it really since I just saw it from your link for the first time, but thanks for backing up what I said about it.

    "directing the secretary of workforce development to appoint a committee to study wage disparities between men and women and between minority group members and nonminority group members, and making an appropriation. "

    Hey look, like I said, the bill was not directly focused simply on women but on "women" AND "minority groups".
    Um, I never said it was strictly about women, your false claim was "that is not even directed towards women". It is primarily directed towards women, you are being dishonest.



    So the guys dumb in rgards to why he thinks the disparity exits and appears to be misogynistic in some of his thinking. However, that's one of his reasonings for why he thinks studies showing the gap are wrong in their determination that its simply due to employer bias. In terms of motivation for why to repeal it he also stated from the same article:I do like how you chatise me for ignoring something (that really was easily answerable based on what I had linked to in my response anyways which is why there was no point in responding...becuase I obviously disagreed with your premise) and yet I don't see links to some examples of significant national attempts at taking away atual women's rights issues or a few states other than just Wisconsin doing things like this.
    Funny, you admit he is misogynistic, and then you show how he further defends corporations from paying equally to both sexes for the same work.

    And then you (try to) say that even though I have brought forward examples of reduced women's rights (which you don't accept as being reduced), you want more examples. I could go and bring up many more examples(like the defunding of Planned Parenthood by multiple state legislatures, the current attempt by Mississippi to create greater hurdles for the Dr's at the last PP in the state, the AZ legislators allowing employers to drop contraception coverage.....it just goes on and on with increasing numbers over the last 2 years....), but what would be the point, you refuse to accept any of it. You prefer to defend zygotes by giving them personhood status, you defend the overturning of equal pay for equal work, you want to turn back the clock to pre-Roe.

    You are arguing for the reduced rights of women.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  6. #446
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    So your other examples revolve around abortion, revolve around abortion, and then revolved around religious freedoms...

    Yeah, not "anti-women" despite your egotistical belief that your view on the issue is the end all be all absolute truth.

    Sorry, but no...you're simply wrong when faced with reality rather than the dishonest motivations and views you force upon others to manipulate your way into hoping that people are stupid enough to think you're proving your propaganda point.

    Which isn't surprising, since you yourself flat out lie about "what I defend" since I've done no such thing. I've defended suggesting that it is automatically "anti-women" in its intent in that case and that a singular state doing it is representative of a "wide effort" at a "national and state level". I don't deem to know enough about the law either way to condemn it or to defend it, however I have seen enough to suggest that deeming it as unquestionably "anti-woman" in motivation or a way of showing "wide effort" to "roll back" women's rights 50 years. You also, completely ignorant of my views regarding abortion, claim incorrectly that I want to turn back the clock to pre-Roe.

  7. #447
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,352

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    For those who believe there is a "war on women", how will you determine when the war is over?

    What would "victory for women" look like?
    When men have menstrual cramps!


  8. #448
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,352

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    I guess I'll bump this topic.

    Are there any new developments on this issue?
    Nope. I still have my armor on, but everyone is too busy talking about Zimmerman to fight with this woman.


  9. #449
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Well - while I was doinga project for school my husband watched his news (Fox) - they make everything into a war (tonight's focus was a war on school I think)

    So it sounds like 'war' has lost it's meaning and is just being tagged onto everything like '. . . gate' and ' . . . ism'

    Which kind of bugs the **** out of me - it's a heavy word and should be used sparingly. I don't like how it's being turned int ojust a catchphrase.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  10. #450
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So your other examples revolve around abortion, revolve around abortion, and then revolved around religious freedoms...

    Yeah, not "anti-women" despite your egotistical belief that your view on the issue is the end all be all absolute truth.
    Again, do men use these reproductive choices?

    No.

    So the only people as a class who are having their rights restricted are...women.

    Sorry, but no...you're simply wrong when faced with reality rather than the dishonest motivations and views you force upon others to manipulate your way into hoping that people are stupid enough to think you're proving your propaganda point.
    Now you are spewing rhetoric and still not making any point.

    Which isn't surprising, since you yourself flat out lie about "what I defend" since I've done no such thing.
    You have hid behind your "cons do this" blanket. You do this since you cannot defend your position, you take up someone else's position.
    I've defended suggesting that it is automatically "anti-women" in its intent in that case and that a singular state doing it is representative of a "wide effort" at a "national and state level".
    You have defended who? No one. Again, the only people who are having their rights restricted are women.

    I don't deem to know enough about the law either way to condemn it or to defend it, however I have seen enough to suggest that deeming it as unquestionably "anti-woman" in motivation or a way of showing "wide effort" to "roll back" women's rights 50 years.
    Again, you misrepresent what I said, I said the the total effect is to chip away at women's right, to take their status back to Roe. If personhood for zygotes sticks, it will take women's rights back even farther.

    You also, completely ignorant of my views regarding abortion, claim incorrectly that I want to turn back the clock to pre-Roe.
    You still are hiding under the "cons do this" blanket. Again, if you had faith in whatever belief you have, you could say it, no one is stopping you but yourself.
    Last edited by Gimmesometruth; 04-26-12 at 11:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

Page 45 of 53 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •