Feminism

[Ben X]

For anyone who couldn't bear to stick with that gif all the way through, here's a video (might not stay up):

 

http://youtu.be/uaPrmThe3M8

 

I hope this embeds because the comments are predictably awful, including one girl saying (paraphrasing) "I'm pretty and this never happens to me, just carry a knife around and get over it."

[Merus]

Related fact: apparently rohypnol has been reformulated so that when dissolved in liquid it turns the liquid a little sludgy.

[clyde]

Related fact: apparently rohypnol has been reformulated so that when dissolved in liquid it turns the liquid a little sludgy.

This is exactly the time of solution (no pun intended) that I get excited about. I think that when we talk about systemic solutions, we often imagine that we will have to wait three generations for an entire culture to have some sign of change. This example points out that systemic solutions can also be implimenting methods closer to materials and distribution-paths on the spectrum of convenience/individual responsiblity.

 

Edit: but then I read this from the Wikipedia page

Flunitrazepam has been referred to as a date rape drug because of its high potency and ability to cause strong amnesia. However, Robertson's study indicated that flunitrazepam was used in only around 1% of reported date rapes and 0.33% according to urine lab tests done by El Sohly.

 

and this:

 

The newly designed 1 mg tablets introduced in the late 1990s by Roche for the European market are identical in all countries, only the packaging and packaging size differs since there are different laws in each country. The new tablets are green (containing a blue coloring) and are pressed harder during manufacturing—so that the tablets can only dissolve quickly in hot liquids, while turning the drink a blue color and leaving a green residue in the beverage—were introduced to prevent use as a rape drug and abuse on the drug scene. However there have been only few reported cases in Europe where flunitrazepam was used as a rape drug and in most countries flunitrazepam is still offered as a generic drug with white tablets that can be dissolved easily.

[clyde]

In reference to changing rape-culture, I just came across this article

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12053/full

 

It's a pretty common-sense kinda thing; meaningful participation in multiple groups of varying diversity and curiosity about other cultures can increase the likelihood of bystander intervention when someone is getting damaged. I assume that this can be applied to gender politics just as much as race politics. I'd love to see a study where co-ed sports or classrooms are compared to gender-segregated ones to see if the boys in one are more willing to intervene in rape than the boys in the other.

[JonCole]

The Supreme Court narrowed Obamacare's requirement that all employer-sponsored health insurance cover birth control, ruling that "closely-held corporations" did not have to comply with the regulation.

 

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court ruled 5-4 that it will allow some business owners to exclude birth control from their insurance plans if coverage would violate their religious beliefs.

 

The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, found that "closely-held corporations" — defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those where five or fewer individuals own a majority of the company's stock — do not have to include birth control in the health insurance package they offer workers.

 

Source: Vox

 

I'm so angry. Both the healthcare system and political system are such in the US that some of Hobby Lobby's 13k employees don't get access to basic health care.

 

Problems:

• Since healthcare is provided by employers, they are a chokepoint of access to people.
• Hobby Lobby didn't care about their religious rights until 2012, when some hotshot lawyers thought they could get a lot of money getting HL riled up to fight. Evidence: the company's investments EVEN NOW put millions of dollars into the pockets of contraceptive companies.
• Somehow the law is such that a company run by less than 10 people somehow are allowed to impose their casual religious preferences on the lives of thousands of people.
• For some reason, people think that this is even a religious argument to begin with, when contraceptives like "The Pill" provide tangible health benefits to women beyond "irresponsible use" for birth control.

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, I usually don't talk about political stuff on the forums but this is a little overwhelming this morning. I moved this from the Random Thought thread mostly because I expect most people would prefer it here, not because I particularly think this is a "feminism" issue. Frankly, anyone who cares about healthcare should support contraception for women, not just people who care about women's rights.

[neonrev]

Not to make this anymore political, but I can only really deal with this by hoping that the shittiness of your employer's beliefs determining things about your healthcare helps push people more towards a single-payer solution down the road. But man, that was a hard one to wake up to. 

[Professor Video Games]

This ruling is insane. Since when did any corporation's "religious" view (this alone makes no sense) trump the religious freedoms of its employees? And why would it so narrowly apply only to the issue of contraception? Because this sort of rationale can be expanded out into all sorts of ridiculous scenarios that I won't even bother going into. Really I can't even wrap my head around it.

[JonCole]

This ruling is insane. Since when did any corporation's "religious" view (this alone makes no sense) trump the religious freedoms of its employees? And why would it so narrowly apply only to the issue of contraception? Because this sort of rationale can be expanded out into all sorts of ridiculous scenarios that I won't even bother going into. Really I can't even wrap my head around it.

 

The dissent suggests that this ruling is not narrow at all, despite what Alito said in the opinion -

 

In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along withpartnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible withtheir sincerely held religious beliefs. See ante, at 16–49. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based optouts impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a “less restrictive alternative.”

 

The full opinion can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

[clyde]

This entire corporations as people thing is ... problematic.

[Bjorn]

Yeah, this is the opposite of narrow, as it establishes legal precedence that corporations are allowed to have religious views and qualify for religious exemptions from laws.  Which is insane.  Corporations are people.  Corporations have first amendment speech rights.  And now corporations have religious rights. 

 

 

• Hobby Lobby didn't care about their religious rights until 2012, when some hotshot lawyers thought they could get a lot of money getting HL riled up to fight. Evidence: the company's investments EVEN NOW put millions of dollars into the pockets of contraceptive companies.

 

I fully disagree with the ruling and with HL's logic, but I also think the media has done a really shitty job of covering this case.  HL never opposed contraception in general.  They opposed 4 of the 20 mandated options under the ACA because those four are too close to being an abortion (which is also bullshit, as abortion is a constitutionally protected choice, but whatever). 

 

Ultimately this is yet another move in this Court's erosion of abortion rights, along with being an expansion of corporate rights.  This court has steadily moved towards undermining Roe v. Wade and other reproductive rights laws, without directly challenging the RvW yet.  I doubt they even directly ever challenge RvW, as the massive shit storm re-addressing abortion would cause would be huge.  But, what they can do is chip away at rights one little case at a time, while affirming conservative states moves towards restricting abortion as much as possible. 

 

 

 
I moved this from the Random Thought thread mostly because I expect most people would prefer it here, not because I particularly think this is a "feminism" issue. Frankly, anyone who cares about healthcare should support contraception for women, not just people who care about women's rights.

 

I don't disagree with you, I just figured it would get a better, deeper discussion here than in the random thought thread.  It is, sadly though, a truth that women are far more likely to deal with employer and medical bullshit regarding their gender and healthcare than a man ever will. 

[JonCole]

I fully disagree with the ruling and with HL's logic, but I also think the media has done a really shitty job of covering this case.  HL never opposed contraception in general.  They opposed 4 of the 20 mandated options under the ACA because those four are too close to being an abortion (which is also bullshit, as abortion is a constitutionally protected choice, but whatever).

 

My point is that their 401ks for employee retirement included investments in companies that manufacture Plan B, ParaGard, IUD, and Ella. So sure, they can't pay for their employees to receive these drugs, but they can invest money in those companies to manufacture those drugs?

 

Their opposition is indeed specific, but I believe to be far from sincere.

 

I don't disagree with you, I just figured it would get a better, deeper discussion here than in the random thought thread.  It is, sadly though, a truth that women are far more likely to deal with employer and medical bullshit regarding their gender and healthcare than a man ever will.

 

I didn't mean any aggression, I moved it here because I thought you had a good point regarding what type of people tend to talk about this kind of topic. It's just silly to me that it is so, because healthcare should be a universal issue no matter who one particular part of it affects.

[Gormongous]

This entire corporations as people thing is ... problematic.

 

There's a lot of problematic things at work in that decision, "corporations are people" is just the most egregious.

 

Can anyone tell me when the "sincerely held religious belief" thing made its penetration into the American legal system? It seems like an untenable concept on so many levels. How do you tell if a religious belief is sincerely held? Is there a paper trail that must be established? How do you distinguish a sincerely held religious belief from a sincerely held non-religious belief? Does it have to be a documented tenet in an organized religion? As we're applying it right now, it seems to be up to the judge's willingness to believe the defendant, which is... tenuous, especially since it apparently allows both people and corporations to opt out of whatever laws they don't like.

 

I really hope someone refuses to pay their taxes and manages to document a "sincerely held religious belief" not to feed Mammon or whatever. This'll get overturned so fast your head will spin.

[Bjorn]

My point is that their 401ks for employee retirement included investments in companies that manufacture Plan B, ParaGard, IUD, and Ella. So sure, they can't pay for their employees to receive these drugs, but they can invest money in those companies to manufacture those drugs?

 

Their opposition is indeed specific, but I believe to be far from sincere.

 

Oh yeah, I absolutely think they are hypocrites about this, but I would have rather have seen the media coverage nail that, rather than the somewhat ambiguous way that a lot of outlets have covered it. 

 

 

I didn't mean any aggression, I moved it here because I thought you had a good point regarding what type of people tend to talk about this kind of topic. It's just silly to me that it is so, because healthcare should be a universal issue no matter who one particular part of it affects.

 

I wasn't criticizing you or anything, I was just further explaining why I felt it would generate a better discussion here and why it was more of a feminist issue.  Sorry for any confusion!

 

 

There's a lot of problematic things at work in that decision, "corporations are people" is just the most egregious.

 

Can anyone tell me when the "sincerely held religious belief" thing made its penetration into the American legal system? It seems like an untenable concept on so many levels. How do you tell if a religious belief is sincerely held? Is there a paper trail that must be established? How do you distinguish a sincerely held religious belief from a sincerely held non-religious belief? Does it have to be a documented tenet in an organized religion? As we're applying it right now, it seems to be up to the judge's willingness to believe the defendant, which is... tenuous, especially since it apparently allows both people and corporations to opt out of whatever laws they don't like.

 

I really hope someone refuses to pay their taxes and manages to document a "sincerely held religious belief" not to feed Mammon or whatever. This'll get overturned so fast your head will spin.

 

Ginsberg's dissent is pretty incredible in nailing her fellow justices on those questions.

 

Here's a fascinating case from around '90 about whether or not religious belief would allow for the illegal use of peyote by worshippers of Native American religions.  Justice Scalia's rational in it seems completely in opposition to his voting in favor of Hobby Lobby.  Bold emphasis added by me.

 

''We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate,'' he said.

 

''It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in,'' Justice Scalia said, ''but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself.''

 

A generally applicable law or regulation that places an incidental burden on religious practice is constitutional, Justice Scalia said, unless it is ''specifically directed'' at a religious act. As an example, he said, a law prohibiting ''bowing down before a golden calf'' would ''doubtless be unconstitutional.''

 

That was written 24 years ago, but you could imagine how it easily could have been part of this decision if it had gone the other way.  Justices can of course change their opinions over time, but it's a staggering reversal of opinion nonetheless.  The Hobby Lobby case does not appear to meet the criteria that Scalia outlined for this kind of case in an earlier ruling. 

[Professor Video Games]

OK I'm at work so I just read the majority decision syllabus...good grief. From that at least, Bjorn is correct in that this is primarly about undermining abortion rights and the religion argument is only a pretext because the final paragraph goes out of its way to specify that this decision applies ONLY to the contraceptive mandate and not to anything else. This is after they go on and on about how the Religious Freedom Act protects the religious rights of corporations. Not only that, but in that last paragraph they specifically cite another case where it was ruled that Social Security taxes had to be paid regardless of objections on religious grounds. So for some reason when it comes contraception, religion trumps existing laws, but for literally anything else it doesn't?

 

Also, my favorite quote from it:

...the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholdersers, officers, and employees

 

HA.

[feelthedarkness]

The specifically carved out taxes as being exempt for their B.S., so this is definitely just anti-woman right wing propaganda. 

[clyde]

Can anyone tell me when the "sincerely held religious belief" thing made its penetration into the American legal system? It seems like an untenable concept on so many levels. How do you tell if a religious belief is sincerely held? Is there a paper trail that must be established? How do you distinguish a sincerely held religious belief from a sincerely held non-religious belief? Does it have to be a documented tenet in an organized religion? As we're applying it right now, it seems to be up to the judge's willingness to believe the defendant, which is... tenuous, especially since it apparently allows both people and corporations to opt out of whatever laws they don't like.

I think I can see where you are getting confused. It's not about whether or not an individual citizen sincerely holds the belief; it's whether or not the Supreme Court justice sincerely holds the belief. As you can see, the ruling is actually right on when you know that this is the proper reading. It also accounts for the native american example.

[Bjorn]

So I have some friends who are celebrating the SCOTUS decision about this on my Facebook feed.  Normally I never defriend anyone on Facebook, but this one is bugging me. 

 

How do you all handle stuff like this on Facebook?  Do you defriend, filter, challenge people?

[Brannigan]

Ignore it unless it's something incredibly heinous.  Maaaaaaybe engage them on it, depending on the situation. (and the who the friends are)

[Twig]

I recently, during the E3 "where are the women!" thing, had someone pull the ol' "why are we fighting sexism when it isn't nearly as bad as [insert bad thing]" bit IN CONJUNCTION WITH "why can't we just enjoy video games as video games" and I challenged them on it but because I suck I doubt I made a very good argument. Luckily some other people in the video games Facebook group with me (including a couple women!) backed me up. Of course he clearly wasn't convinced because just a couple days ago, weeks after the argument, he went and posted one of those Images With Text of a Muslim woman in full Muslim-woman garb (that's probably offensive, but I honestly don't know what the proper terminology is, and I think people should know what I mean) and the text was something like "i thought i had it hard, but feminists on tumblr". Classy.

 

What I'm saying is I usually engage, but also usually it doesn't go anywhere useful. Whether that's their fault for not listening or my fault for being a really terrible debater, I dunno. Probably both.

[JonCole]

I generally defriend if not family, or reduce the frequency they appear in my news feed.

[Bjorn]

I'm trying something new for me.  I'm simply asking very neutral (I hope) questions asking them to explain their stance to me.  This shouldn't feel so alien, as it's certainly something I've done in person before, but never tried the tact on Facebook.  None of these "friends" are people I'm particularly close to, mostly old high school friends.  I have actually gotten into some knockdown, dragout political fights on Facebook with some of my family, but that's different.  We'll say the same things to each other in person (my Dad and I are not allowed to talk politics unless the rest of the family has an escape outlet, so no serious discussions in cars or restaurants).  Facebook just lets us make a whole bunch of people uncomfortable all at once, instead of just the people in the same room with us.  One of my aunts recently told me how much she enjoys fighting with me on Facebook, because no one in her regular life ever challengers her like that.  Which was a weird compliment to get.

[Merus]

In moments like this, I wonder exactly how far things have to go before people start taking the Second Amendment option. I mean, America is filled with guns to stave off the threat of government overreach. Right now, the Supreme Court has essentially privileged the opinions of Southern Baptists over other religious views (as this decision only applies in the case of religious objections to contraception - Scientologists can't use it to avoid paying for psychiatrists, for instance.)

 

But anyway, it is a shitty situation when a deepely conservative part of the government deliberately sabotages something, so I feel for the people deeply embarrassed by their country right now.

[TychoCelchuuu]

The people who are most serious about guns are not the people who are most serious about protecting a woman's right to contraception.

[Twig]

One of my friends who is very strongly conservative (mostly in the area of guns and stuff related to the military and money issues) once told me, in all seriousness, that if the government ever outlawed guns, there would be a civil war. He's also all for gay rights and birth control and basically any social issues he's super liberal.

 

I started this post like ten minutes ago and got distracted, so I'm not sure what I was actually trying to say here, but I guess mostly the point was to say that... Um. No I really don't know. Maybe it has some value though so I'll post it anyway.

[syntheticgerbil]

I think this kind of employee treatment by Hobby Lobby should get some wider press, if not already, I suppose I'm not tapped in. I can't believe so many people go to that store as it is, but it would be nice if some regular shoppers started to boycott and tried other hobby stores or even local art supply and craft stores. The thing is, unlike Walmart, you will waste way more money shopping at Hobby Lobby than other places. Most of their supplies for painting and crafts are incredibly cheap in quality and way too expensive for what you get. Plus the stuff they sell off the shelf, like tacky statues and the like are all just sloppily painted shit from China that you could get for about a third less at Garden Ridge, if sloppily painted shit is your thing.