homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Friggin' hypocritical self-righteous misogynists! (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Friggin' hypocritical self-righteous misogynists!
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Grrrrrrrr.

"Women on Birth Control Could Be Barred From Working If Missouri Lawmakers Get Their Way" (Newsweek)-- and barred from housing, too.

If they're going to set up a morality clause, then it should also apply to acts politicians are often known for: adultery, statutory rape, sexual assault, driving under the influence, corruption...

Or, to make it simpler: "Are you now, or were you ever, a politician? No respectable person will employ you or rent to you. Go away."

Double grrrrrrrrr.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17447 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow. Just wow.
Posts: 15065 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is what Hobby Lobby was all about. Don't expect this to be struck down by the courts. The Republican Party hates women. Full stop.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62784 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I really hope that some Missouri male legislator's mistress will pipe up and publicly say "You know, if *we* hadn't been using birth control, we'd probably have a gaggle of kids to explain to your wife--and for you to support; you might want to rethink that bill, and stop being an ass".

Or, of course, the women of Missouri could go all "Lysistrata" (Wikipedia). (NOTE: Has drawing that's slightly NSFW.)

quote:
Lysistrata (/laɪˈsɪstrətə/ or /ˌlɪsəˈstrɑːtə/; Attic Greek: Λυσιστράτη, "Army Disbander") is a comedy by Aristophanes. Originally performed in classical Athens in 411 BCE, it is a comic account of a woman's extraordinary mission to end the Peloponnesian War by denying all the men of the land any sex, which was the only thing they truly and deeply desired. Lysistrata persuades the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands and lovers as a means of forcing the men to negotiate peace—a strategy, however, that inflames the battle between the sexes. The play is notable for being an early exposé of sexual relations in a male-dominated society.
[Cool] [Overused]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17447 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Motherfuckers, I can't even

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16372 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Republican Party hates women.

I have a theory about that.

Maybe it's not so much about the Republican Party necessarily having a detailed agenda of awfulness, but rather that the only necessary driving element is the grasping for power. The current modality that it has evolved to stoke its grasping for power is to leverage fear and hate. This is effective because not only are most people susceptible to fear and/or hate, but it also pulls for fringe elements that normally would not be accessible to political parties with, you know, objective thought.

So, not quite that the Republican Party hates women, but rather that it empowers people that hate women. And people that fear non-whites. And people that fear non-cis. And people that hate thinking.

The Dumbocratic party has totally different but similar problems - but they're just annoying, not horrifying.

Posts: 15065 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So far as I can tell, this is the bill.

For the sake of clarity, can someone explain to me, quoting the bill, how it supports the Newsweek headline?

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's like they use the illusion of giving freedom of conscience so they can say they're not forcing their morality on people; they're just granting employers, landlords, etc., the ability to do so.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17360 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can see that in the bill as regards "abortion facilities" but not contraception, and I cannot see anything about employer-employee relationships or tenant-landlord relationships other than in respect of abortion facilities and/or provision.

What have I missed?

[ 24. June 2017, 08:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So far as I can tell, this is the bill.

For the sake of clarity, can someone explain to me, quoting the bill, how it supports the Newsweek headline?

It overturns an existing ordinance which prohibits such discrimination. It doesn't introduce the right itself.

http://feministing.com/2017/06/21/missouri-votes-to-let-employers-fire-people-who-use-birth-control/

This is the ordinance it overturns:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-protecting-women-against-discrimination-for-having-an-abortion-pass es/article_ebbfb676-ef5c-560a-ba0c-3b9a3a9672a1.html

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17360 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's what Feministing says, yes. But someone is going to have to explain to me how SB5 pertains to reproductive health, i.e. contraception, and not abortion.

Specifically, I can't see how it can
quote:
sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control
Can anyone link to an actual piece of legislation instead of articles about it?

[ 24. June 2017, 09:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm working on kicking back and calming down. But the following might be useful:

--Search on "news missouri bill women contraception rent june 2017" at DuckDuckGo. A variety of hits, including some in Missouri.

--HuffPost article.

--American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org) and the National Organization for Women (now.org) don't seem to have anything yet.

I'm now going back to watching "The Great British Baking Show". Night! [Smile]

PS Thanks for taking this seriously.
[Overused]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17447 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
...so in America, your employer and your landlord both have the right to examine your medical records?

Good grief.

Posts: 3779 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm trying to take this seriously, but my ability to do so is being hampered by nobody, so far, managing to point to the actual legislation that suggests anything other than action against abortion clinics and providers.

For the fourth time of asking.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It doesn't. It overturns a bill which forbids discrimination on grounds of reproductuve choices, thereby effectively re-enabling it.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17360 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It doesn't. It overturns a bill which forbids discrimination on grounds of reproductuve choices, thereby effectively re-enabling it.

Can you a) supply a link to the original bill b) explain how the new one allows discrimination on grounds of reproductive choices?

I can see that the new one allows discrimination against abortion providers, but not that it allows discrimination based on reproductive choices, specifically, use of birth control as a criteria for employment and/or accommodation (of individuals rather than abortion facilities).

[ 24. June 2017, 11:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Should add - I presume it's one of the previous ordinances explicitly listed as repealed at the head of the bill. Euty may be misunderstanding and thinking it's being claimed that the main body of the bill is what's being referred to. That's not my understanding.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17360 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus: Here you go.

I have not read it myself, as I am not a lawyer and am perfectly willing to accept that the links Golden Key posted are reporting this accurately. However, typing a Google search for 'st louis reproductive health legislation' took less than a minute. You should try it yourself sometime.

The bill repealing the original legislation has a link to the original legislation. In anticipation of your next question.

[ 24. June 2017, 11:26: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posts: 3779 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It doesn't. It overturns a bill which forbids discrimination on grounds of reproductuve choices, thereby effectively re-enabling it.

Can you a) supply a link to the original bill b) explain how the new one allows discrimination on grounds of reproductive choices?

I can see that the new one allows discrimination against abortion providers, but not that it allows discrimination based on reproductive choices.

I'll find a link later because Ivm making lunch - I did earlier link to an article about the St Louis Bill. The point is not that the Bill explicitly enables discrimination, it's that it overturns the Bill forbidding it.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17360 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus:
quote:
I'm trying to take this seriously...
You're not coming across as someone who's trying to take it seriously. You're coming across as someone who doesn't see why being forced to provide information to employers and landlords about your use of contraception/abortion might be a problem.

In the UK, access to medical records is strictly controlled. Employers are allowed to ask you to prove that you are medically fit to do your job (usually by having a check-up with an independent doctor), but that does not entail a right to micromanage your reproductive health. Landlords are only allowed access to information about whether you can pay your rent.

Might I suggest that the existence of the original bill (now repealed) shows that discrimination on the grounds of reproductive decisions *was* a problem in the state of Missouri? And now the legal barriers to it becoming a problem again have been removed.

Posts: 3779 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[x-post]

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Eutychus: Here you go.

I have not read it myself, as I am not a lawyer and am perfectly willing to accept that the links Golden Key posted are reporting this accurately. However, typing a Google search for 'st louis reproductive health legislation' took less than a minute. You should try it yourself sometime.

I think it's reasonable to expect the people making the claim to substantiate it.

I supplied the link to SB5 and if I hadn't bothered to ask, people would still no doubt be ranting about this based on second-hand reporting. Not even Newsweek can be bothered to link to the actual legislation in question. That's hardly good journalism.

GK's claim, partly citing Newsweek, was "Women on Birth Control Could Be Barred From Working If Missouri Lawmakers Get Their Way... and barred from housing, too."

The city ordinance you link to does indeed explicitly provide against discrimination on the grounds of reproductive health.

However, so far as I can see, while SB5 may repeal that ordinance, it does not positively enable discrimination on the grounds of reproductive health (in other words, the situation outside St Louis remains unchanged in this specific respect).

Again, so far as I can see, that is the clear implication of the OP and just about every secondary source that's running with this story, but unless someone can show me how SB5 positively enables such discrimination it is not an accurate portrayal of the facts, something that really doesn't endear me to the cause.

[ 24. June 2017, 11:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You really don't get it, do you.

It enables discrimination by removing the legal barriers to it. That's all that is necessary, in a culture where discrimination happens (ie everywhere). I'm sure my former employer would have LOVED to know whether I was on the pill. I don't think it's any of their business whether I was or not, and the law where I live agrees with me.

Posts: 3779 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
You really don't get it, do you.

It enables discrimination by removing the legal barriers to it. That's all that is necessary, in a culture where discrimination happens (ie everywhere).

I get that - in those terms.

I would have been far more supportive and outraged if the new legislation had been presented thus by the OP and related articles: as removing the barriers to existing practice rather than as introducing new, more discriminatory measures. It reads like the latter, and is what a casual reader here would have assumed had I not sought clarification.

The facts are bad enough. What's to be gained by misrepresenting them?

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Disappointed]
"Your outrage over this issue would be understandable if you'd only formatted properly and added footnotes. As you did not, I shall view you with haughty disdain"
Though knee-jerk reaction is an occurance down here, you spent more effort whinging about it than it would have taken to find the source material yourself.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16372 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post]

However, so far as I can see, while SB5 may repeal that ordinance, it does not positively enable discrimination on the grounds of reproductive health (in other words, the situation outside St Louis remains unchanged in this specific respect).


As a US woman in my 70s (and with a long and various work history), allow me to explain.

Back in the Bad Old Pre-Discrimination Days, employers not explicitly barred from doing so were perfectly free to ask prospective female employees whether they were married, engaged, or single; whether they had, or planned to have, children; what arrangements had been made for the care of extant children, and on and on.

Employers were free to deny employment to said prospects based NOT ONLY on the answers provided, but also on the interviewer's beliefs / assumptions about prospects' truthfulness in responding. I have been asked all of the above questions. No law explicitly stated that employers COULD ask them; they simply did so when not expressly forbidden to.

It's also true that employers asked male prospects about their marital status, but I have yet to meet a man of my generation who has ever been quizzed about his child-care arrangements.

Trust me: the notion that women between 15 and 50 are basically breeding stock who will, on the flimsiest of whims, upend your company's recruitment and training budget was, and probably remains, widespread.

[ 24. June 2017, 14:17: Message edited by: Ohher ]

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 136 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops: that should be "Pre-NONdiscrimination Days."

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 136 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus, why has it not occurred to you to consider why the non-discrimination laws were passed in the first place?
Posts: 24321 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not that they're anti woman. They are against women having sex. This is the only explanation that covers everything. Our sexuality is to be controlled and managed and exploited by men, only. We don't get any control.
If we have sex, we deserve to get a disease or become pregnant, ideally both. Naturally there shall be no health care for the pregnancy, and delivery in a hospital costs north of $15,000. No, of course you don't get birth control or an abortion, you slut. After that you get to raise the child yourself (the father had nothing to do with conception, you know).

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5174 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I'm with Eutychus here.

Fake news has become as much a problem for the left as the right - and especially the well-educated, voting left. BBC source. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to consider the sources of what they're linking to.

And I say this not to minimise the issues involved, but precisely because the issues are important. If, as progressives, we build our outrage on shaky foundations, it's much easier for conservatives to ignore us.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7046 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[x-post with Ricardus]

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[Disappointed]

[Disappointed]
Once again you manage to attribute to me things I never said.
quote:
"Your outrage over this issue would be understandable if you'd only formatted properly and added footnotes.
I can quite understand anybody's outrage and women's all the more, and have never said anything to the contrary.

What I did say was that I personally would have been more outraged if I had been confronted with the facts of the matter than with "Women on Birth Control Could Be Barred From Working If Missouri Lawmakers Get Their Way" which is far more clickbaity than it is truthful (and yes, this tendency to make headlines as clickbaity as possible sometimes up to and including making them say the exact opposite of what the related article says pisses me off, as it feeds into the whole "fake news" thing).

You know perfectly well that my challenge was not about footnotes or formatting but about substance, and I resent you misrepresenting my challenge as regards the latter as a petty criticism of style.

Substance here means checking the facts of the law against the media claims. Or are we only supposed to do that for Fox, Trump, et al?
quote:
you spent more effort whinging about it than it would have taken to find the source material yourself.
First off, if you scroll up you'll find that I did find the source material (the bill referred to in the OP) myself. It wasn't linked in the article and that's shoddy journalism right there.

Besides, if the complaint had been about an issue you opposed, the first thing you would have done is complain about the lack of a link to the source, and the second thing you would have done is complain that the article quoted did not accurately reflect what the source said: in other words, exactly what I just did. Why do you not apply this principle equitably?

What the source material tells me is that notwithstanding the discriminatory and reprehensible treatment of women in MO the headline in the OP is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. As such, I think it's unhelpful.

If y'all think it's OK to have news outlets distort the actual reasons for your outrage and take the view that "it's close enough to the truth", well fine for you, but it's not how I roll.

As I said, removing a legal protection combating the discriminatory status quo is quite enough to be outraged about. That doesn't justify dressing up said removal as a legal measure that actively exacerbates the status quo. That is simply not true for Missouri as a whole, as I understand it.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ricardus:
quote:
Fake news has become as much a problem for the left as the right...
This isn't fake news. News that has been presented in the worst possible light I will grant you. News that has been completely made up, no. There really was legislation preventing discrimination on these grounds, and it really has been repealed.

There is a difference between spin and fake news, and saying 'tu quoque' is not going to make it go away.

Posts: 3779 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For the hard of understanding, here is an actual example of fake news: Pizzagate

[ 24. June 2017, 17:37: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posts: 3779 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:
quote:
Fake news has become as much a problem for the left as the right...
This isn't fake news. News that has been presented in the worst possible light I will grant you. News that has been completely made up, no. There really was legislation preventing discrimination on these grounds, and it really has been repealed.
I agree with your analysis. I think your analysis is correct because it corresponds to the digging that Eutychus has done. Consequently I would say that Eutychus' contribution to this thread has been helpful, rather than something to get outraged over.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7046 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's nice. You go on thinking that if it makes you happy.

You don't get to tell me or any of the other women who have personal experience of this type of discrimination how we should feel.

Posts: 3779 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What Ricardus and I are arguing is that the misrepresentation of the facts in the OP does a disservice to the cause of women discriminated against in Missouri.

Nobody's told you how you should feel. That is further misrepresentation.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ricardus said:
quote:
Consequently I would say that Eutychus' contribution to this thread has been helpful, rather than something to get outraged over.
This certainly sounds like an instruction to me.
Posts: 3779 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, here's a Missouri women with experience of shitty job discrimination (yes: it was medical).

No, they are NOT allowed to ask you shitty questions about your contraception etc. That is barred under law and remains barred under law. That is, under other, pre-existing laws, which have not been repealed and remain in force. The removal of an anti-discrimination measure does not miraculously enable employers, landlords, etc. to ask you nosy questions that are barred under various privacy measures.

Now if you are fool enough to volunteer information on these subjects to a jackass of an employer or landlord, AND they act according to such nature, perhaps (I say perhaps; I rather doubt it) they would legally be allowed to discriminate. I'm fairly sure there are other pre-existing laws in place which would allow you to bring suit even in that case, though. The St. Louis measure appears to me to have been a piece of political grandstanding--a largely or totally unnecessary ordinance created mainly as a way of highlighting political issues.

Before you all start jumping down my throat for the word "unnecessary," I mean in the sense that protective laws are already in place, and a new one is not going to add anything.

Note: I am not a lawyer, and I defer to any such who has knowledge of applicable Missouri and federal law.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19891 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Back to the Bad Old Days - for Women
Anyway".

Anyway ... I think that's how I might have headed the article, certainly for UK consumption.

Repealing or removing the teeth from existing progressive legislation is part of the conservative toolbag. Saves them having to say what they are really up to. I've become a bit paranoid with that approach, which doesn't mean that they aren't out to get somebody.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20744 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus said:
quote:
Consequently I would say that Eutychus' contribution to this thread has been helpful, rather than something to get outraged over.
This certainly sounds like an instruction to me.
Then you can't parse any more than lilBuddha.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Back to the Bad Old Days - for Women
Anyway"

It's not "back" to anything for anywhere in Missouri outside St Louis as regards reproductive health. It just isn't.

If there's an issue, it's that of making it more difficult for abortion facilities to be set up state-wide. This is clearly the thrust of the bill before the Senate, but you could be excused for not realising that if you hadn't read the bill (as opposed to the coverage of it).

quote:
Repealing or removing the teeth from existing progressive legislation is part of the conservative toolbag. Saves them having to say what they are really up to.
Yes, and as Lamb Chopped said
quote:
The St. Louis measure appears to me to have been a piece of political grandstanding--a largely or totally unnecessary ordinance created mainly as a way of highlighting political issues.


[ 24. June 2017, 19:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
.... The St. Louis measure appears to me to have been a piece of political grandstanding--a largely or totally unnecessary ordinance created mainly as a way of highlighting political issues.
...

And killing an "unnecessary" ordinance sure looks like grandstanding as well. Grandstanding that says to women, "don't take your rights and freedoms for granted."

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5295 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus said:
quote:
Consequently I would say that Eutychus' contribution to this thread has been helpful, rather than something to get outraged over.
This certainly sounds like an instruction to me.
I would suggest that if you are going to put the worst possible spin on things said by posters who agree with you on the discrimination issue already, then you are probably not going to achieve very much that is helpful.

I accept that my post can be read that way, if you squint. But seriously, if I take offence at a poster for reasons that are stupid, is everyone else not allowed to tell me those reasons are stupid just because no-one has the right to tell me what to feel?

I have no interest in your feelings. I am basically Mr Sociopath with regard to your feelings. But outrage isn't a feeling, it's a moral judgement. If I think that moral judgement is unjustified, I will say so.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7046 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But outrage isn't a feeling, it's a moral judgement. If I think that moral judgement is unjustified, I will say so.

You're mistaken. Outrage is most certainly a feeling, usually justified by someone's rights or equality getting trod on.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's not that they're anti woman. They are against women having sex. This is the only explanation that covers everything.

I beg to differ. They are against women having sex, but they are also against women having much of anything else. I was self-supporting with a bank account, credit, and the other usual accouterments of adulthood when I married.

When I relocated and got a new job shortly after marriage (in NYC in early ‘70s), I was informed by my new bank that I could open a checking account, but would need my husband’s permission to get a credit card. Same held when I inquired at several other banks.

Then there are the price differentials. It costs more to dry-clean a plain women’s shirt than a plain men’s shirt. It costs more to get female haircuts than male ones. Women routinely get charged more for cars, auto repairs, and assorted other services. And this comes on top of earning about 20% lower pay.
It goes on and on and ON.

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 136 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
.... The St. Louis measure appears to me to have been a piece of political grandstanding--a largely or totally unnecessary ordinance created mainly as a way of highlighting political issues.
...

And killing an "unnecessary" ordinance sure looks like grandstanding as well. Grandstanding that says to women, "don't take your rights and freedoms for granted."
Look, this is St. Louis. We just had one officer shoot another one, probably because he was black and armed and offering assistance and the first guy didn't recognize him as police.

Duh we do stupid legal tricks. Getting your panties in a twist over our legal grandstanding is a waste of time. Go for the real problems that need real outrage.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19891 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can quite understand anybody's outrage and women's all the more...

There is one place in Missouri to get an abortion. One. In the whole state. This is how much lawmakers are controlling women's lives in parts of the US.

Is the Newsweek reporting good? No. Is clickbaity headlining bad? Yes. But are there people here bent on driving women back at least as far as the 1950s? You bet your ass there are.

So fuck you and your pretense of understanding women's outrage.

Posts: 24321 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My paranoia is showing. Maybe the repealed law was strictly speaking unnecessary, so why bother to repeal it? Unless, that is, the repealers want to give the reverse message to employers. Political grandstanding either way seems likely to have some impact on the way job interviewers and interviewees behave.

That might not be fair of course, but I'm inclined to take RuthW and Soror Magna's point that this isn't about fairness at all. Danger, reactionary forces at work. Does it really matter whether they are trying to turn the clock back by legal means or political ones? Or trying to keep the clock stopped? If you're the one being interviewed, you'll feel the pressure whichever it is. Particularly if you really need a job.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20744 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There is one place in Missouri to get an abortion. One. In the whole state. This is how much lawmakers are controlling women's lives in parts of the US.

Can't you read?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If there's an issue, it's that of making it more difficult for abortion facilities to be set up state-wide.

It's not like I haven't acknowledged the issue re: abortion throughout this thread.
quote:
are there people here bent on driving women back at least as far as the 1950s? You bet your ass there are.
I have no doubt that's true. But I think people would be more easily won over to combating it if the issues were raised truthfully.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So fuck you and your pretense of understanding women's outrage.

I'm basically sympathetic to your cause and have a pretty thick skin, but the aggressivity being shown towards me on this thread for having the temerity to establish the facts is making being sympathetic hard. What are you like with actual opponents? And why?

(It's attitudes like this that make me think Trump will be in power until at least 2024. Opponents seem to have no concept of winning over the middle ground).

Adeodatus started a long and thought-provoking discussion in DH a while back about useful idiots.

If those justifiably militating in favour of women's rights (or any other cause) can't be bothered to present the issues accurately*, content themselves with exaggeration and misrepresentation in the hope of enlisting more support, and lash out at anybody challenging this propaganda, then they lay themselves open to the charge of treating their own activists as useful idiots - and in the long run, paying the price for doing so. Don't you think women deserve better than that?

==

*As Ricardus has said, it took my contribution on this thread to actually establish what the issues are, as opposed to what Newsweek and the sources it cites claim they are.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How very helpful! Because sorting out the issues is what Hell is all about!

I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. You're just some guy in France, not an American voter, never mind a Republican politician who needs to change his mind about being a misogynistic asswipe. And I'm not in Hell to win hearts and minds or to hone my argument.

But I will say this about the issue of abortion: this isn't about making it difficult to set up facilities for abortion in Missouri. It's about eliminating them entirely. Look at the map showing all the places in the US that provide abortions. Zoom in a couple of times so you can see the vast expanses -- hundreds and hundreds of miles -- where there are no abortion clinics at all. The governor, who called a special legislative session just for this, isn't simply grandstanding. He's trying to close that one remaining clinic.

Posts: 24321 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW, emphasis mine:
I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. You're just some guy

Yeah, it's kinda hard not to get the impression that the problem's right there...
quote:
not an American voter
Oh, is Hell restricted to that readership?
quote:
And I'm not in Hell to win hearts and minds or to hone my argument.
Maybe not, but if my outrage on any topic is fuelled by a false premise, then it would give me pause for thought. YMMV.

quote:
But I will say this about the issue of abortion: this isn't about making it difficult to set up facilities for abortion in Missouri. It's about eliminating them entirely. Look at the map showing all the places in the US that provide abortions. Zoom in a couple of times so you can see the vast expanses -- hundreds and hundreds of miles -- where there are no abortion clinics at all. The governor, who called a special legislative session just for this, isn't simply grandstanding. He's trying to close that one remaining clinic.
Agreed this is terrible.

So why the fuck isn't that the subject of the OP?

Why make do with misleading articles when the truth is bad - and more powerful for being actually true?

[ 25. June 2017, 08:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16958 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus--

Things are in the OP because they're straight from the article. Newsweek may or may not be right on this. But, AFAIK, it's still a respected periodical, as opposed to Newsmax, etc.

Later in the thread, after you started questioning, I provided links to other articles on the same story. They may or may not be accurate, but Newsweek and the sites to which it links aren't the only outlets covering this.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17447 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools