Lady News!

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Lady News!

Postby Lumpy » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:28 pm UTC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28676975/

Democrats are hoping one of the first bills Obama will sign will be to end a legal loophole where victims of pay discrimination must file lawsuits 180 days after the discrimination happened. In a lawsuit, Lily Ledbetter thought she was within the 180 day limit, but the Supreme Court ruled that the 180 day count started from the first time her employers paid her less than her male co-workers, instead of from the last time she was paid less.

Well, Republicans are trying to delay the legislation by calling it a "boon for the trial lawyers" that would no doubt benefit from the increased amount of lawsuits. This was also their reaction to withholding amnesty from telecommunications companies and anything that has to do with regulating any industry in any fashion.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Indon » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:15 pm UTC

We wouldn't want to give people whose job is literally to work for justice on your behalf something to do, that would be silly.

Edit: Also, humor!

The Article wrote:But Senate Republicans, while stressing they were not filibustering the legislation,


...how many republicans are there in the senate? 41? Maybe 42? They ain't gonna be filibustering jack for 2 years and they're trying to get sympathy from that fact.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Lady News!

Postby TheStranger » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:35 pm UTC

It seems like a reasonable change to me. Moving the 180 days limit from the first paycheck to the last allows more time to discover that you are not being paid equally, while keeping the limit intact (preventing lawsuits from coming years after employment was terminated).

a hearty hurumph for this one.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Lady News!

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:07 pm UTC

What I'm waiting for: President Obama (squeeeee) repealing the Global Gag Rule (The Mexico City Policy).
This news article says he's postponing it:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/526141.aspx
But then this one says:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... uantanamo/
Separately, the administration was set to issue a reversal of a ban on federal funding for non-governmental organizations working outside the U.S. that offer abortions or abortion counseling.

Obama was to sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

So I guess I'll just wait?


Also, to the ladies and gentlemen of the US- Just because we've got a better President doesn't mean we can stop talking. For one thing, people like those opposing this legislation never stop:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01 ... gislation/
WASHINGTON - Activists on both sides of the abortion question will congregate Thursday at the annual March for Life protest in Washington to debate the possible passage of the Freedom of Choice Act.
President Obama, speaking to Planned Parenthood while a candidate, said he would sign the legislation should it pass Congress, and his vow has energized all sides of the issue this year.
The FOCA as introduced to Congress in 2007, is umbrella legislation that aims to protect women's health and their right to "to begin, prevent or continue a pregnancy."


Let's get this legislation through Congress so he can sign it, alright?
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
Pizzashark
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:04 am UTC
Location: Fayetteville, AR, USA
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Pizzashark » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:04 pm UTC

Sounds good to me.
UDSA inspected, FDA approved.
Everyone wants a slice.™

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Lady News!

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:05 pm UTC

This crap terrifies me.

Some dumbass nurse practitioner in New Mexico has been yanking out her patient's IUDs because she's against it.

If someone had me on the table and took out my IUD against my will, I'd lift my foot right up out the stirrup and break her fucking nose.

Also?

This story seems a good, although frightening, reminder that the "provider conscience" rule went into effect on Tuesday and isn't affected by Obama's immediate order to halt Bush's pending federal regulations.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Lady News!

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:10 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:This crap terrifies me.

I don't even HAVE a vagina and that pisses me right the fuck off.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:13 pm UTC

Wow.

That is horrible on many levels, and I hope the patient wins that law suit (not only does it cost a pretty penny to get one put in, but seriously? beyond removing the birth control we also have the *pain and possible damage* that comes from yanking a 2cm piece of metal out of someone's cervix. damn.)
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Lady News!

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:22 pm UTC

The best part really is the provider conscience stipulation that comes along for the ride.

They can pull out your birth control and then refuse to fix the problem they created. It adds a whole new level of delicious vitriol to the rage.

"Oops! I fucked your body up on purpose because I don't like what you've done to it. And now, of course, no one is under any obligation to fix it, least of all me!"

Does IUD even allow for fertilization of the egg? That's completely irrelevant, but I ask because if it doesn't, she fails at even having basic medical knowledge. Is she morally opposed to condoms, too?

Anyway, paternal medicine for the fucking fail.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:09 pm UTC

A link I found through Meaux's links says absolutely not abortion, but some people think condoms are evil. They should not work in healthcare anywhere near sex either.
An IUD is a small, typically T-shaped piece of metal or plastic that is inserted into the uterus, where it interferes with conception. In essence, what it does is induce a low-grade, local inflammation in the reproductive tract that causes changes in cervical mucus, hindering the passage of sperm. The device itself also seems to block sperm activity, and some IUDs also slowly release progestin, a hormone that suppresses ovulation. It is not an abortifactant. It is basically a kind of barrier method. Most of the uninformed complaints about the IUD are built on the fact that it also induces changes to the uterine lining which would inhibit implantation if sperm somehow managed to fertilize an egg.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:21 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:What I'm waiting for: President Obama (squeeeee) repealing the Global Gag Rule (The Mexico City Policy).

So I guess I'll just wait?

Yep, continuing the back-and-forth of the previous two administrations, he did indeed repeal it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:54 am UTC

Even if there is another reversal with the net president, this will help millions of people. This makes me sigh in a good way.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

Osha
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:24 am UTC
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

Re: Lady News!

Postby Osha » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:45 pm UTC

I was really really happy when I heard that news. There was a small part of me that worried that Obama would be all talk and not actually do anything good, but then he went and repealed that so quickly! I was trying not to get too excited but that's one awesome start :D

Also, check out the whitehouse.gov website on civil rights and lady stuff. :D

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby lorenith » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:35 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:The best part really is the provider conscience stipulation that comes along for the ride.

They can pull out your birth control and then refuse to fix the problem they created. It adds a whole new level of delicious vitriol to the rage.


Can't the nurse still get in a ton of trouble for completely shattering the patients personal rights though? I mean, ones rights end when they impede on another's correct? The nurse has no right to yank anyone's IUD without their consent regardless of her religious/moral beliefs. Even if they can refuse to fix it, they'll still have to reimburse the patient(s) if the lawsuit works out in a logical way. I mean, provider conscience lets providers refuse certain things, it doesn't let them perform stuff on people against their consent and get away with it.

Saying "oops I pulled out your IUD" is like saying I dunno "oh sorry I just ripped your arm off, I tugged a little too hard on it!" isn't it? I don't have one but I'd heard it's not exactly easy to remove, and that article makes it seem extremely painful too.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:10 pm UTC

I wanted to be able to give you an update on this, but Google News does not have anything about it, at all. Some sites interested in law have a little bit.
The plaintiff demands damages for battery, constitutional violations and negligence.

I wish her all the luck in this case. If she does not win it will be a tragedy for women everywhere (and for our legal system).
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Lady News!

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:04 pm UTC

lorenith wrote:Can't the nurse still get in a ton of trouble for completely shattering the patients personal rights though? I mean, ones rights end when they impede on another's correct?


Oh, sure. I'm just imagining the (probably unlikely as hell) nightmare scenario where we have nurses and other medical care providers who's decision to do something criminal is then supported by a medical infrastructure that is under no legal obligation to fix what their cohorts have done.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:32 pm UTC

Sorry, US centric:
The Paycheck Fairness Act has made it through the House but in order to stop women from losing $434,000 in income, on average, over a 40-year period due to the career wage gap it needs to get through the Senate too.
People try to pretend the wage gap is no big deal, but when you are talking about the difference of basically a house (a biggish one at that) it gets a little scary. I want a house someday...
This act does not 'make' people pay men and women the same, but if there is a difference they need to justify it. Some people might find it redundant since the Fair Pay act was made into law, but considering it is still an issue 46 years after Kennedy's Equal Pay Act was signed into law I think we might need to do some pushing to get it through.

Some other opinions on it:
Rep. Rosa DeLauro
National Women's Law Center

in case you want to see the last vote...
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

stapleface
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:38 am UTC

Re: Lady News!

Postby stapleface » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:34 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:Some other opinions on it:
Rep. Rosa DeLauro
National Women's Law Center


they're kinda the same opinions on it
this is a different opinion.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Lady News!

Postby Bakemaster » Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:47 pm UTC

Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder. I hadn't heard of this before, and the article is somewhat interesting, but what I found more interesting (in a cynical way) was the fact that the shitheads at FOX wrote up an article describing a serious disorder but then paired it with an "I'm an attractive woman who wants to fuck you" picture. Way to be shitheads, shitheads!
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Lady News!

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:09 pm UTC

SUCKS TO BE IN NORTH DAKOTA AND HAVE A UTERUS, I GUESS

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726

North Dakota House Passes Abortion Ban:

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"


The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Lady News!

Postby Gunfingers » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:20 pm UTC

While this looks bad, i don't really see it going anywhere. So far it has passed through one of their two houses of legislature. Barely. In the event that it makes it through the other it will last approximately five minutes in court.


Total uterine danger: 1.335/10

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:30 pm UTC

I hope you are right. Because if fear/religion based legislature did make it through, this would put many women in danger and make me start pipe bombing anti-choice base camps.
blow up my clinic will you!
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:00 pm UTC

Also, it makes this speech so much more important.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Delalyra
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:39 am UTC
Location: Western Mass
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Delalyra » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:53 am UTC

Didn't they try to ban abortion in ND before and it failed? I am not too worried. Still, scary stuff. :\

But that condom video is awesome!
you may remember me from 2008 or 2009. I left for a while. I'm now sporadically back. I tumble here.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:00 pm UTC

It turns out giving women access to reproductive health care is TOTALLY USEFUL!(press release here, full report here)
I am very happy someone finally studied this and made it so people will do the right thing to save money (they should be willing to do it to help people, but saving money is something everyone can agree with).
article wrote:She said that every dollar spent on the programs saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to women who are eligible for Medicaid

I just want more people to know about this so more public support will go behind it. With the US economy in the crapper things that help us save money while helping our citizens is pretty awesome.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Lady News!

Postby Bakemaster » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

That's excellent. On a somewhat unrelated note, that press release page's favicon appears to be the internet explorer icon...? Odd.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Hawknc » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:04 pm UTC

Here's one I would like the female population's opinion on:

Women, say yes more to save your marriage

Now, I can see where it would frustrate many men to be in a relationship where they feel their needs are not being met, but...I'm having trouble articulating exactly the problem I have with the article, other than it shifts the blame for failing relationships back onto the woman. Sexual compatibility seems like one of those things that is so important to determine early in a relationship, and I would imagine both parties share responsibility when that compatibility isn't there.

User avatar
Delalyra
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:39 am UTC
Location: Western Mass
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Delalyra » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:19 pm UTC

Shit like that? The single best reason to be sex-positive and have sex before you get married.

Hawknc wrote: Sexual compatibility seems like one of those things that is so important to determine early in a relationship, and I would imagine both parties share responsibility when that compatibility isn't there.

Spot-on.
you may remember me from 2008 or 2009. I left for a while. I'm now sporadically back. I tumble here.

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Lady News!

Postby TheStranger » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:15 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:Now, I can see where it would frustrate many men to be in a relationship where they feel their needs are not being met, but...I'm having trouble articulating exactly the problem I have with the article, other than it shifts the blame for failing relationships back onto the woman. Sexual compatibility seems like one of those things that is so important to determine early in a relationship, and I would imagine both parties share responsibility when that compatibility isn't there.


It doesn't seem to be blaming women, rather it suggests that women should be more open to sexual advances by their partners. There seems to be the idea, in popular culture at least, that it is the woman who has complete control over the sexual side of the relationship... when it should be shared between the man and the woman.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Lady News!

Postby Bakemaster » Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:10 pm UTC

Hawk's article wrote:"The notion that women have to want sex to enjoy it has been a really misguided idea that has caused havoc in relationships over the last 40 years."

WHAT.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby PictureSarah » Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:29 pm UTC

Ms. Arndt can fuck right the hell off.

Arndt said while giving women the right to say "no" to sex was an undisputed success of the women's movement, "the female libido tends to be a fragile, easily distracted thing that gets buffeted by normal life and a couple can't afford to have their intimacy reliant on that fragility".


So no matter what stress we're under, no matter how much our lives have left us without the emotional resources left for coping, let alone having sex, we're supposed to just grin and bear it, because our "intimacy" is dependent on me having sex when I don't want to, and my husband will feel rejected if I don't? Biggest load of bullshit ever.

I love sex. My sex drive is usually just as high or higher than my man's. But there have been times (times that have lasted for a few weeks at a time) where I am too stressed and upset to want to have sex. Bakemaster can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that he felt rejected. He knows I think he's a studcrumpet, and it had nothing to do with him. Our conversation and feelings for each other remained just as intimate as ever, and I'm damn sure he wouldn't have wanted me to have sex out of some misguided notion that it would make him happy for me to have sex when I didn't want it.

I don't think a sexless marriage sounds fun, or like a particularly healthy romantic relationship. I do think that the couple described in the article that went for 8 years with no sex after the responsibility for expressing sexual desire was placed entirely with the woman sounds like a marriage with some big problems, and they should probably look into relationship counseling. But I think that saying "Women, sex up your men, whether you want it or not!" is a terrible, terrible message. The root of why women no longer desire sex is what needs to be addressed, not just the lack of sex itself, otherwise you're just going to shift the misery from one partner to the other.
Last edited by PictureSarah on Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:16 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:30 pm UTC

article linked wrote:The notion that women have to want sex to enjoy it has been a really misguided idea that has caused havoc in relationships over the last 40 years.

Um, maybe I am sensitive to certain issues, but this seems like an article saying 'hey women, you want to have a happy marriage 'realize' you are the one responsible for your husband's sexual satisfaction, regardless of what you want.'
I see this as very dangerous, and it is horribly blind to the partner rape that goes on in reality. People should only have sex when they want to, not because someone else wants to fuck them. This article basically says that women should let their partner use their body to get off in order to keep the guy happy. They don't know how to masturbate? They don't know how to seduce the woman they are life bonded with so they will also be excited to have sex instead of being willing to be used as a flesh light.

So it might be clear I find the article to be thinly veiled support of rape culture in relationships. And well, support of rape culture in general.

ninja'd by Sarah.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Lady News!

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:00 pm UTC

TheStranger wrote:It doesn't seem to be blaming women, rather it suggests that women should be more open to sexual advances by their partners. There seems to be the idea, in popular culture at least, that it is the woman who has complete control over the sexual side of the relationship... when it should be shared between the man and the woman.
Except, you know, when people say things like "women have complete control over when sex happens", what they actually mean is "women have equal control to men over when sex happens". It's basically supposed to work like this: Boy wants to have sex. Girl doesn't. Sex doesn't happen. -- Boy doesn't want to have sex. Girl does. Sex doesn't happen. -- Boy wants to have sex. Girl does too. Sex happens!

I'm sure there are shitloads upon shitloads of complications concerning how much you do or don't want sex versus how much you want to make your partner happy, but the whole 'Women want to control all the relationship's sex!" point is bull shit; there is no way that absolute control over your own sexuality can ever impinge on your partner's absolute control of their sexuality.

And yeah, seriously, what the fuck? If your relationship is under risk of collapsing because your partner doesn't want sexings right now, maybe the relationship is in trouble to begin with. Go whack off in the bathroom.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Hawknc » Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:11 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Go whack off in the bathroom.

That seems a poor substitute for an actual sexual relationship with your partner, but the other parts I agree with. Sophy and Sarah seemed to put down what I was thinking much more eloquently than I could (as always).

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Quixotess » Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:54 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Here's one I would like the female population's opinion on:

Women, say yes more to save your marriage

Now, I can see where it would frustrate many men to be in a relationship where they feel their needs are not being met, but...I'm having trouble articulating exactly the problem I have with the article, other than it shifts the blame for failing relationships back onto the woman. Sexual compatibility seems like one of those things that is so important to determine early in a relationship, and I would imagine both parties share responsibility when that compatibility isn't there.

Could it be that it equates women "dreading bedtime" to men being "hurt by rejection"? You know, I'd like to say that no one's ever really tried to say that a woman's desire to not have sex should ever be overridden by a man's desire to have sex, but, uh, nope. What you're looking at is pro-rape.

A woman, 54, from Hobart spent the first 10 years of her marriage fighting about sex, always nervous about an unwanted advance. "He'd be snoring loudly and I'd still lie there worrying that the hand was going to come creeping over."

This is a description of an abusive relationship. She doesn't feel like she can say no. She doesn't feel like she can do anything about it, or else she knows that she'll have to have a fight in order not to be subjected to touching she doesn't want to. She lies awake in fear of her husband; she's afraid of him. Yet the article utterly fails to identify it as such.

Seriously. I used to think about what would ever happen if some moron came in here and said "The woman doesn't want to be raped, but the man wants to rape; why do her needs always come before his?" and laugh, but that's what you're looking at.

"The notion that women have to want sex to enjoy it has been a really misguided idea that has caused havoc in relationships over the last 40 years."

With the right approach from a loving partner, if women were willing to be receptive "and allow themselves to relax … they would enjoy it", she said.

This also describes rape and is a pretty well-known narrative of rape apology. "I could tell she wanted it." "Her lips said no but her eyes said yes." The second line encourages women to submit to rape, tells them if they don't enjoy it there's something wrong with them, and provides ways for men to convince themselves that women should submit to advances and do enjoy sex they don't want--which, if you missed the memo, is rape.

It makes me sick.

So yeah, what sophy said.

Acceptable solutions to "mismatched desire" in relationships:
-figure out what's wrong in the relationship, work on that
-screen your relationship partners for sexual compatibility; leave a relationship where it's unresolvable and a deal-breaker
-make do without sex

Unacceptable solution to "mismatched desire" in relationships:
-"sex" that one party doesn't want. (Because that is rape.)
Raise up the torch and light the way.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Lady News!

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:08 am UTC

Good news: heard from Countdown that that medical conscience rule has been undone by the Obama administration. yeyz.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby william » Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:11 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Good news: heard from Countdown that that medical conscience rule has been undone by the Obama administration. yeyz.

That's the ridiculous rule where doctors could use their "conscience" to avoid doing their job, right? I have two words in that case: "Fricken' finally!"
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby sophyturtle » Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:12 am UTC

I do this thing were I write the editor when I see things like this. You can too! Here.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Hawknc » Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:33 am UTC

Please do - the SMH/Age is, in a very general sense, one of the slightly more liberal newspapers here and they're probably more likely to listen to outrage at this sort of thing than the Herald Scum or Daily Telegraph.

User avatar
Delalyra
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:39 am UTC
Location: Western Mass
Contact:

Re: Lady News!

Postby Delalyra » Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:58 pm UTC

Er, undone? I read that an anonymous official said they wanted to bin it, and were opening up another comment period. Still, it's good news!
you may remember me from 2008 or 2009. I left for a while. I'm now sporadically back. I tumble here.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests