Leave a comment

Comments 57

squidger July 1 2014, 15:48:40 UTC
There's a dude on my Facebook feed who is one of those atheists who give other atheists a bad name. Super vehement and obnoxious about it. No shades of gray, religion is terrible, no exceptions. But he's also super sexist. So, of course, he makes a post about how this ruling really isn't that bad.

Reply

recorded July 2 2014, 01:53:55 UTC
That's really interesting. How does he justify that?
All the atheist groups I follow were like THIS IS APPALLING, WORST RULING EVR

Although, I saw a poll of reddit's MRA subreddit and a depressing % of them were atheists

Reply

amyura July 2 2014, 02:20:42 UTC
There's a sizeable subset of white libertarian guys in their 20s to 40s who are atheists. Perhaps even a majority of white libertarian guys. One of my husband's best friends is a gay atheist, and apparently also an MRA. He defriended me over the Elliot Roger shooting, ostensibly because I used the word "mansplain" and he felt that was discriminatory and "can't we all be equals?"

Similarly, this time around, I have seen exactly ONE woman, a crunchy conservative, defend the decision. Every other defense has come from a white guy.

Reply

recorded July 2 2014, 02:52:38 UTC
Is he still one of your husband's best friends?

Reply


nicosian July 1 2014, 15:54:12 UTC
I'm not american, but I'm just stunned. and appalled at the mansplaining I've seen that implies women should just be grateful for a job at all, a salary, and that they don't "deserve" healthcare. Then there' the men who say they saw a rise in their premiums because all those slutty women demand free birth control and it's too expensive to pay for their sexual demands so they can go buy it themselves ( a most contradictory stance when you pause to think on it).

It just goes on. The horrible horribleness of men who are dancing on this decision makes me want to set things on fire. The contempt for women, children, families, on the altar of the High Holy Fetus is amazing.

The ignorance and misogyny in some groups over this...I honestly can only scream.

It just sets such a dangerous precedent into what a boss can dictate to staff regarding personal lives and health.

Reply

oldruggedspork July 1 2014, 16:17:55 UTC
And what about the male sexual demands? What about married women who are not ready for kids yet? Why aren't men called to account for all the costs of illegitimate children, etc.?

Reply

nicosian July 1 2014, 22:32:09 UTC
Good question why they're not called to account.

I think any woman, regardless of her marital status, orientation, wish for kids or not, sexual choices and all the whole damn thing: is so not the workplace/boss's platform for their beliefs.

Funny thing as they demand women simply keep their legs closed, and pay for their own birth control, men are fairly encouraged to get their action on,even outside marriage. I've never fully parsed how that mathematics was supposed to work.

Reply

oldruggedspork July 1 2014, 23:12:09 UTC
Yeah, who is supposed to do all that screwing, anyone they can talk into it? Or push into it?

There is an "Asian Bodywork" shop that is a few blocks from where I live, in a conservative community--in the next block from a Catholic church.

It is open 24/7 apparently, has nice looking young Asian women and I wonder if they were probably lured over here with the promise of jobs, then had their passports yanked and were beaten and...the usual. It just makes me so sad because I don't think they are here willingly.

Those women are paying for their own...everything, the ramen noodles, the towels, the rooms, the drugs they were given when they were gang-raped and beaten.

Then we pay to put them in jail.

Reply


magicpebble July 1 2014, 17:04:24 UTC
My mom posted about this on her facebook yesterday, and I was pleased to see the number of middle-aged women who were ENRAGED about this decision. Now we just have to hope that all the women who are upset about what SCOTUS did yesterday actually vote.

Reply


zendequervain July 1 2014, 18:29:41 UTC
This twitter post has it right.

Fetus? Person.

Corporation? Person.

Uterus-bearing individuals? Meh.

We are literally valued at less than the potential of a fetus.

Reply


dziga123 July 1 2014, 19:58:24 UTC
"Of course, women know that birth control is used for more than just birth control. Women use it for all kinds of medical reasons..."
There is a clause in the decision that when birth control "methods" used for something else then birth control, or when contraception is medical necessity (you don't want woman with uterine or ovarian cancer get pregnant) they should be covered by insurance no matter what.
As a matter of fact, birth control, under this circumstances, has always been covered.
I know this article is not about that. Just saying.

Reply

nesmith July 1 2014, 20:14:49 UTC
I think the overarching point is that it should not matter why a woman wants birth control or why a doctor is prescribing it, and certainly an employer should have ZERO input in the lives of their employees. Although that clause is nice, it just creates an additional hardship since I'm sure women will inevitably have to jump through a million hoops to "prove" that they're not using for nasty immortal baby-killing purposes.

Reply

nicosian July 1 2014, 22:39:15 UTC
This. Its not just the birth control used beyond its contraceptive application, but the line that an employer has any say in your health care at all.

One meathead argued that covering all those IUD's and pills jacked HIS insurance rates. Which is ludicrous, but hey, lets blame the females for this. How much does a pregnancy cost, sir? a high risk pregnancy? How about your co worker's cancer brought on by HIS lifestyle? Oh, that' doesn't go against some arbitrary religious argument, i see.

Women already had to purchase riders for pregnancy care. I don't think my US friends want to pay for his prostate exams, heavens knows that's where his tiny hind brain lurks. It could get crushed.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up