I completely agree with you.
It really bothers me that so many people who are anti-abortion are men, and what puzzles me even more is the women that are also trying to take away the rights of other women. Actually it doesn't puzzle me, because many are influenced by religion which has always been a downfall to women. I understand that they have their own opinions and beliefs, which I don't mind at all, but it irks me when they try to impose it on other women.
You are absolutely right and I agree with you totally. Women who are oppressive to other women and play lapdogs to men infuriate me, but certainly they are also victims of sexism and misogyny. They may not realize it, but they are oppressed just as much by the things they support in their ignorance, if not more. We all know that playing lapdogs to women-hating men is often much easier than calling them out on their hatred, especially when they have a lot of money and power. But again, you are absolutely right, they should keep their opinions to their own bodies. If you don’t want to get an abortion, then don’t. Do not touch another woman’s body and her rights over it.
Though, it’s really the men who are pro-life that make me want to tear my hair out. What the fuck do they think they know about “getting knocked up”? It’s so arrogant and ignorant, I can’t stand it.
I was just wondering after seeing that video if you are pro-choice or against abortions, and if you don't mind explaining why so.
I am absolutely pro-choice.
By robbing women of authority over their own bodies, we are oppressing them. It’s as simple as that. I also find that pro-life people grossly underestimate the complicated relationship women have with their bodies, mothers have with their children. They seem to believe that the state or some “level-headed, responsible” men should have a say in the matter of her body. (Certainly, dudes who participated in the pregnancy - barring rapists - should get a say, but only in so far as the pregnant woman wants his say in her decision-making, which I believe she will depending on the relationship she has with the dude.) It is bafflingly condescending to me to suggest that someone else would know what’s “best for the fetus and the mother” better than the mother herself, no matter what her age or race or socioeconomic status or ability or education level.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”—Noam Chomsky (via androphilia)
The women did not seem deterred. Their clothes were American casual, with vests, fanny packs, sneakers. They still hoped to visit the pyramids. “I’m not coming all this way and not getting on a camel,” one said.
“Anarchism, with its spirit of daring and inquiry, its criticism of old standards and values, and its emphasis on individual freedom, innovation, and experiment, has always held a special attraction for artists and writers. It is the natural creed for intellectuals and bohemians who consider themselves aesthetically and socially in the avant-garde and therefore irrevocably opposed to the existing order. Anarchists, moreover, have been less tempted to set rules for artistic creation than other groups, and more inclined to accept art for what it is as it comes from the artist’s workshop. Small wonder, then, that painters and sculptors, poets and novelists should have found anarchism a congenial doctrine. As Hyppolyte Havel observed: “A searcher for new expression is actually a rebel, and where do you find a rebel without anarchistic tendencies?”—Paul Avrich, The Modern School Movement: Anarchism and Education in the United States (via furrows)
The CRTC is trying to allow telecom companies charge for metered bandwidth usage. This means that we will be allowed somewhere around 25GB of bandwidth and then another $1-$4 for every extra GB, with no ceiling! We can’t let this happen. Sign the petition above and let all your friends know.
forcing sex on a person
despoiling a population or place
[a mustard plant or grape residue]
No one rapes your Internet connection, or rapes you in a debate. No one rapes your ask box with spam. People don’t rape with their eyes, that’s called “eye-fucking.” You are not raped with a passionate hug. No one rapes you at basketball or rapes you with a tackle, playful or athletic. You don’t want someone to rape you, because then it isn’t rape. Wanting to rape does not mean wanting to have sex. You do not want to rape people to whom you’re attracted, unless you are a rapist.
As long as I’m talking about it, here are some misconceptions:
Nonchalance toward rape does not combat the stigmatization attached to victims.
The word rape does not give itself power. The power comes from the context of the word for victims.
Rape victims are not asking you to be hypersensitive by asking you not to belittle or to trigger a trauma.
I’m not violating your right to free speech by asking you to be considerate.
If you read this and felt attacked, ask yourself why. We don’t say “sexually abused” metaphorically, so why say rape? I’m not asking you to never use the word. I just believe it should only be used when you seriously mean rape. When we live in a world without millions of victims, we can talk about redefining or reclaiming it.
I even have alternatives, though there are obviously many more:
“The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich. Consequently, the modern poor are not pitied…but written off as trash. The twentieth-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which a beggar is a reminder of nothing.”—John Berger (via rossencraft)
Why not make people who are higher risk pay higher premiums?
Experience-rated insurance requires higher risk people to pay higher premiums. This approach says that people who have had cancer in the past, or who have chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, or who have had dangerous exposures to substances like asbestos, must pay more because they are at higher risk of using health services. Experience rating allows insurance companies to cherry-pick the healthiest people and either refuse to insure the sickest or, what amounts to the same thing, charge prohibitively high rates. This approach makes no sense. The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk so that everyone is covered. If you raise premiums - and thereby exclude from coverage - those people unfortunate enough to be sick, you defeat the point of both insurance and the health care system. Genetic conditions, childhood diseases, accidents, injuries and income distribution (or how much equality there is in a society) play a much bigger role in people’s health than “individual lifestyle” factors. And we know that even for motivated patients, alcohol and tobacco cessation are difficult, and medical weight loss nearly impossible. We need public health, primary care and education programs to try to prevent disease, but punishing patients once they are ill is inhumane and counterproductive.
Community-rated health insurance is the socially fair approach. It spreads the risks evenly among all the insured. It removes the punitive element. It does not discriminate against the very sick, nor against those of us who are at higher risk because of our age (say, over 50) or our gender (reproductive-age females have higher health expenses than men, for obvious reasons).
Health care should be organized as a public service, like a fire department. A health system organized as a business is discriminatory and accountable to no one. At some point in our lives all of us will predictably need health care. Hence health insurance is unlike any other form of insurance; we all are involved.
Here’s my much shorter answer: because that’s called discrimination.