http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/07/subject-for-debate-are-women-people/#ixzz1oTXGLL42
So much fucking stupidity.
{quote}
SOCIETY
Subject for Debate: Are Women People?
I've always assumed that women are fully autonomous human citizens—who vote, even!—but now I'm not so certain
By JESSICA WINTER | @winterjessica | March 7, 2012 |
97
inShare
123
LUKE SHARRETT / THE NEW YORK TIMES / REDUX
From left: Catholic Bishop William Lori, the Rev. Matthew Harrison, Dr. Ben Mitchell, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik and Craig Mitchell are sworn in during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Feb. 16, 2012. The hearing was called to discuss the Obama administration's contraceptive policy for employees at religious institutions.
All my adult life, I've been pretty sure I'm a sentient, even semi-competent human being. I have a job and an apartment; I know how to read and vote; I make regular, mostly autonomous decisions about what to eat for lunch and which cat videos I will watch whilst eating my lunch. But in the past couple of months, certain powerful figures in media and politics have cracked open that certitude.
You see, like most women, I was born with the chromosome abnormality known as "XX," a deviation of the normative "XY" pattern. Symptoms of XX, which affects slightly more than half of the American population, include breasts, ovaries, a uterus, a menstrual cycle, and the potential to bear and nurse children. Now, many would argue even today that the lack of a Y chromosome should not affect my ability to make informed choices about what health care options and lunchtime cat videos are right for me. But others have posited, with increasing volume and intensity, that XX is a disability, even a roadblock on the evolutionary highway. This debate has reached critical mass, and leaves me uncertain of my legal and moral status. Am I a person? An object? A ward of the state? A "prostitute"? (And if I'm the last of these, where do I drop off my W-2?)
In the hopes of clarifying these and other issues, below I've recapped recent instances of powerful men from the fields of law, politics and literature tackling the question that has captured America's imagination: Are Women People?
Case No. 1: U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes
The Recap: Following a 10-week maternity leave, a three-year employee of a Houston debt collection agency filed a sex discrimination suit, alleging she was fired for asking permission to bring a breast pump to work. Hughes sided with the company, but added that the truth of the plaintiff's claim was irrelevant. "Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition," he ruled in February, paraphrasing Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "She gave birth on Dec. 11, 2009. After that day, she was no longer pregnant and her pregnancy-related conditions ended. Firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination."
What We Learned: Possession of naturally functioning secondary sex characteristics is a fireable offense; a woman with a fetus has more rights than a woman with a baby.
So, Are Women People? Only when they're pregnant.
(MORE: Pregnant at Work? Why Your Job Could Be at Risk)
Case No. 2: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Alabama State Senator Clay Scofield
The Recap: Both lawmakers pursued—and then backed off from—laws that would require any woman getting an abortion to submit to the invasive procedure known as a transvaginal ultrasound and, in McDonnell's words, "view her child." "This was about empowering women with more medical and legal information that previously they were not required to get in order to give informed consent," McDonnell said on March 2.
What We Learned: Acquiring informed consent isn't necessarily consensual; having an eight- to ten-inch wand inserted into your vagina against your will is "empowering"; because they lack vaginas, some male politicians seek empowerment in different ways.
So, Are Women People? I'm guessing no, but you should ask Virginia delegate Kathy Byron, the woman who introduced the bill in her state.
Case No. 3: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa
The Recap: The California congressman convened an all-male panel of clergy to discuss the mandate that insurance companies include coverage of birth control pills. He declined to include Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, which oversees some 1200 Catholic health organizations across the U.S., or Georgetown law student and activist Sandra Fluke, whose health plan does not cover contraception. Of the latter woman, Issa stated, "As the hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the [Obama] administration's actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness."
What We Learned: Freedom of conscience is not an appropriate topic for women to discuss; freedom from unplanned pregnancy, ovarian cysts, symptoms of endometriosis, irregular periods, migraines, and other health issues are not matters of public conscience; talking about icky body stuff is easier for dudes when ladies aren't around.
So, Are Women People? If you look at photos of this hearing, you wouldn't even know that women exist.
(MORE: Joel Stein on Body Politics)
Case No. 4: Sad Loud Man in a Small Room Rush Limbaugh
The Recap: "Slut," "prostitute," "she wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex," "we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch," etc.
What We Learned: Taxpayers are billed across the board for private insurance plans; women who use birth control pills are not taxpayers; women whose insurance covers birth control pills are sluts and prostitutes; taxpayers enjoy watching movies about sluts and prostitutes.
So, Are Women People? They're more like really expensive blow-up dolls.
(MORE: Men Have Sex Too)
Case No. 5: Novelist Jonathan Franzen
The Recap: His much-discussed recent New Yorker essay argued that novelist Edith Wharton is an unsympathetic figure due to her wealth, conservative political views and the fact that she "wasn't pretty." (She "might well be more congenial to us now if, alongside her other advantages, she'd looked like Grace Kelly or Jacqueline Kennedy.") Her unprettiness, according to Franzen, contributed to the sexual dysfunction of her marriage, while her success as a writer caused her husband's mental illness and underscored her antipathy toward her own sex—her friendships with writers of similar stature such as Henry James and André Gide, Franzen says, showed that "she wanted to be with the men and to talk about the things men talked about."
What We Learned: Plain girls aren't good in bed; female success is a brain-eating virus; a (female) writer forging relationships with other (male) writers is a form of penis envy; Jonathan Franzen might not think you're pretty.
So, Are Women People? Not quite—they're objects with certain people-like traits.
Case No. 6: Briefly Viable Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum
The Recap: He calls his wife "the rock which I stand upon."
What We Learned: That's apparently a compliment.
So, Are Women People? No, they're rocks! Finally, a definitive answer. Thanks, Senator Santorum!
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/07/subject-for-debate-are-women-people/#ixzz1oVkArYN5
{/quote}
bleh, this kinda made me sick how little in the world has changed. People judged only by their reproductive organs...
Those cases are troubling, but I don't know what it really says about women's issues on the whole.
The right for women to breast-feed or pump milk in public is still something of a systemic issue, but that was the only one that jumped out at me as not being almost totally anecdotal (even then, I have issues with how some "lactivists" approach things).
I don't think the vast, vast majority of men (or women) would be sympathetic to any of those other things. I'm pretty wary of anything that tries to polarize the public along gender lines and, even though those examples are horrible, I think the article's tone almost bothers me more.
I'd consider myself a feminist, BTW, and I "get it" when it comes to being frustrated with sexism. For example, when I was a waitress, I was told by my boss to "look pretty, but not 'too' pretty. I should make myself attractive to the men, but not so attractive as to piss off the women." That shit is enraging. But do I actually feel like I'm not a "person" in society? Generally? No. I think that'd be a pretty big over-statement.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 10, 2012, 05:08:49 PM
But do I actually feel like I'm not a "person" in society? Generally? No. I think that'd be a pretty big over-statement.
Unless of course you were forced to wear a loosely fitting bed sheet in public. One that hides anything that might reveal that you are a woman, and also one that hides anything that might reveal which person you are, any distinguishable features such as a face. Then you are told that you need a letter of permission if you want to travel anywhere, permission from your man owner. Then you are told that you are not allowed to drive vehicles nor are you allowed to get an education, you must talk in whispers when in a man's presence and must make sure you are never alone with a man that you are not married to. If you are raped by a person that is not your husband then you must marry your rapist else go to prison for having sex out of marriage.
I would love it if feminists would go away, but unfortunately because we live in such a crazy world, we absolutely need feminists.
Yes, obviously, I was talking about where I live. I really cannot talk about my feelings and experiences on being a women in a country I've never stepped foot in.
Edit: If this was an article written by a woman in Afghanistan, I probably would have said "hear, hear". But, realistically, most women in the West are not put in a position where, if they want to have an abortion, they are forced to have an instrument shoved in their vagina or anything even remotely close. Of course there are still issues, but, like I said, I don't find the reoccurring tone of "women aren't people anywhere" in the article to be helpful to the cause.
There are gradients and some women have pretty good, equality-ish lives. No, it's not perfect. No, we shouldn't pretend there aren't systemic issues, but blowing it up with emotional hyperbole doesn't really help and only gives more fodder to people who'd love to paint feminists as irrational/emotional people motivated by personal gain.
Quote from: Stevil on March 10, 2012, 07:38:53 PM
I would love it if feminists would go away, but unfortunately because we live in such a crazy world, we absolutely need feminists.
I'd be very pleased if every variety of bleeding-heart generalizers were to STFU a bit more... PETA makes me want to wear leather and eat burgers, family values crap makes me want to give away condoms and porn outside high schools and feminists make me less sympathetic to the "plight of the opressed" every fucking time they open their mouths.
Is it because I find their points utterly invalid? No. It is because of the way they try to make those points.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 10, 2012, 08:30:40 PM
I'd be very pleased if every variety of bleeding-heart generalizers were to STFU a bit more... PETA makes me want to wear leather and eat burgers, family values crap makes me want to give away condoms and porn outside high schools and feminists make me less sympathetic to the "plight of the opressed" every fucking time they open their mouths.
Is it because I find their points utterly invalid? No. It is because of the way they try to make those points.
Agreed. I have no problem with the fight for equal rights for women, but a lot of feminists seem to think that the way to get that is to insult and offend all men everywhere. I have the outmost respect for women, but not when they call me an animal for simply having nuts.
I will also bankrupt my own company long before I give in to any form of regulated hiring policies. The legislators probably mean well when they say a company must have at least 40% women in its leadership, however, that is also a form of discrimination.
Why not just let me hire whoever I please and assume that I pick people based on qualifications and personality rather than shape of their genitals?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 10, 2012, 09:24:03 PM
I will also bankrupt my own company long before I give in to any form of regulated hiring policies. The legislators probably mean well when they say a company must have at least 40% women in its leadership, however, that is also a form of discrimination.
Why not just let me hire whoever I please and assume that I pick people based on qualifications and personality rather than shape of their genitals?
Sadly, the hiring discrimination is for race and gender. I dislike it too. I wouldn't want to be hired only because i'm female, but on my actual qualifications. This happens a lot with companies sweating "oh, we need to hire at least two black people, so we don't look racist." x__x;;
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 12, 2012, 05:11:54 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on March 10, 2012, 09:24:03 PM
I will also bankrupt my own company long before I give in to any form of regulated hiring policies. The legislators probably mean well when they say a company must have at least 40% women in its leadership, however, that is also a form of discrimination.
Why not just let me hire whoever I please and assume that I pick people based on qualifications and personality rather than shape of their genitals?
Sadly, the hiring discrimination is for race and gender. I dislike it too. I wouldn't want to be hired only because i'm female, but on my actual qualifications. This happens a lot with companies sweating "oh, we need to hire at least two black people, so we don't look racist." x__x;;
More relevant than qualifications is often the "Old Boy Network". I've seen it happening and happening again, that people at high positions got their jobs, because of who they know instead of what they know.
Quote from: Tom62 on March 12, 2012, 06:11:50 AM
More relevant than qualifications is often the "Old Boy Network". I've seen it happening and happening again, that people at high positions got their jobs, because of who they know instead of what they know.
Not only higher positions are obtained that way.
So why not legislate against that? Make companies hire people nobody in leading positions is in any way affiliated with - it would be slightly less unfair than making people settle for second best in cases when the best happens to be a white middle-aged man.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 12, 2012, 07:22:54 AM
Quote from: Tom62 on March 12, 2012, 06:11:50 AM
More relevant than qualifications is often the "Old Boy Network". I've seen it happening and happening again, that people at high positions got their jobs, because of who they know instead of what they know.
Not only higher positions are obtained that way.
So why not legislate against that? Make companies hire people nobody in leading positions is in any way affiliated with - it would be slightly less unfair than making people settle for second best in cases when the best happens to be a white middle-aged man.
I don't know that that would be practical, either, as qualified professionals often know each other. That's why there are so many professional groups and associations; the point is to get your name out there and meet people.
Now, ideally, you'd be competent
and good at networking, but that's not always the case.
I don't agree that businesses should be forced to hire an un-presentative proportion of minorities. In engineering, for example, there are still way more men than women. Trying to force a company to have a 50/50 split of male and female engineers is totally unfair. But, if 1/4 of the engineer workforce is female, I think it'd be a good thing if your company reflected that reality.
I don't really mind that being enforced because, really, with those numbers you should be just as likely to find competent females as competent males.
In Malaysia the native Malay people don't need to attain such high scores to qualify as a Doctor.
Needless to say, patients seek out non Malay doctors.
Quote from: Stevil on March 12, 2012, 08:32:54 PM
In Malaysia the native Malay people don't need to attain such high scores to qualify as a Doctor.
Needless to say, patients seek out non Malay doctors.
Really? I had no idea.
Kinda like "ok, you're one of our people, so you don't have to try so hard" type deal? o_o!
Okkkaaayy, so after reading about this (http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2012/03/14/proposed-az-law-would-let-women-be-fired-for-using-the-pill/) fuckery and learning that a bunch of Conservative MPs want to re-open the abortion debate in Canada, I feel I may have to re-visit my previous comments about the state of women's affairs in the West.
Congrats conservative assholes everywhere, you've made this woman eat her words. Well done.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 02:54:02 AM
Congrats conservative assholes everywhere, you've made this woman eat her words. Well done.
At least you has a HAF-spoon to do it with. :D
Sorry. Resist, The Asmo could not ;D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 02:54:02 AM
Okkkaaayy, so after reading about this (http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2012/03/14/proposed-az-law-would-let-women-be-fired-for-using-the-pill/) fuckery and learning that a bunch of Conservative MPs want to re-open the abortion debate in Canada, I feel I may have to re-visit my previous comments about the state of women's affairs in the West.
Congrats conservative assholes everywhere, you've made this woman eat her words. Well done.
I would think that any company who implemented this rule would not be the sort of place that a women using contraception 'for sexual purposes' would want to work anyway. Although that's not the point. One's responsibility to an employer starts when the walk in the door and ends where they leave in the evening. If one can't perform while at work due to out of work activities (drink or drugs or lack of sleep) then the employer is within their rights to take appropriate action, but IMO that's the limit.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 15, 2012, 04:45:36 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 02:54:02 AM
Congrats conservative assholes everywhere, you've made this woman eat her words. Well done.
At least you has a HAF-spoon to do it with. :D
Sorry. Resist, The Asmo could not ;D
:D That's mean (in a good way)
Quote from: Asmodean on March 15, 2012, 04:45:36 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 02:54:02 AM
Congrats conservative assholes everywhere, you've made this woman eat her words. Well done.
At least you has a HAF-spoon to do it with. :D
Sorry. Resist, The Asmo could not ;D
Hahaha, the HAF spoon makes everything taste a little less bitter.
I like to think that I'm a "Personist" ("Humanist" was already taken, although I think I'm that, too.) I don't hold any hostility towards (most) men, and I just think that everyone should have equal rights and fairly equal access to resources and jobs and whatnot. I always go back and forth about the need for things like "Affirmative Action" though. Personally, I wouldn't want to be hired over someone else simply because I'm a woman. On the other hand, I do believe that there are still people out there that would be less likely to hire a (qualified) woman simply because she's a woman. I don't know what we do about that, if not for using laws like AA. When people like that go away, I will truly and wholeheartedly believe that AA is a crap idea.
I do have to admit that I find it a little irritating when a panel of all men are deciding what should happen to women's bodies and reproductive rights. Kind of like a panel of all women voting on prostrates or something. It just seems like you should have some people who will actually be affected by the decision on the panel.
I am actually gob-smacked. That insane bill passed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/chuck-winder-rape-abortions_n_1366994.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/chuck-winder-rape-abortions_n_1366994.html)
Woman in Idaho have to submit to an ultrasound (a transvaginal ultrasound if they're in their first trimester) if before they're allowed to have an abortion. Even in instances of rape or incest.
They insanely close to forcing raped women to have an instrument inserted into their vaginas before they are allowed to abort the fetus put their by their rapists. I am so fucking livid I can't even think straight.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 22, 2012, 01:18:52 AM
I am actually gob-smacked. That insane bill passed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/chuck-winder-rape-abortions_n_1366994.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/chuck-winder-rape-abortions_n_1366994.html)
Woman in Idaho have to submit to an ultrasound (a transvaginal ultrasound if they're in their first trimester) if before they're allowed to have an abortion. Even in instances of rape or incest.
They insanely close to forcing raped women to have an instrument inserted into their vaginas before they are allowed to abort the fetus put their by their rapists. I am so fucking livid I can't even think straight.
There are no words for my rage and disgust.
So this is America in 2012, huh?
Glad my mother isn't alive to see this.
The level of stupidity in this case is quite frankly staggering.
This call to disobedience on the issue has redeemed humanity for me somewhat.
http://jezebel.com/5895451/a-doctors-manifesto-for-fighting-transvaginal-ultrasounds (http://jezebel.com/5895451/a-doctors-manifesto-for-fighting-transvaginal-ultrasounds)