|
Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Lunch » Tags » Untagged » Contraception Debate » User review

Contraception Debate

Contraception debate and other fallout from it

< read all 1 reviews

Sticks-to-stones -- what the response should be to the idiocy of men debating women's health

  • Mar 2, 2012
Rating:
-5

This is an open call to American Women.  Do something!  Do it now!  I can only imagine that the reason the entire gender hasn’t simply gone on strike is what I hope is a temporary case of mouth agape shock.  A minority of men is working to screw up all of women’s health issues based on a blind hatred of only one portion of women’s health.  Furthermore they do this while male mouthpieces say either idiotic or truly hateful things.
 
The time for reasonable action has all but passed.
 
First, its time for a full on Girlcott.  Every woman, regardless of politics, should refuse to buy or use products or services advertised not only on the shows of the men who are trying to set the clock back to the barefoot and pregnant days but also all who advertise on the stations that broadcast his bile.  It’s not enough to refuse to have anything to do with their national sponsors; you need to make sure you do the same to all the local sponsors.  Women are responsible for buying more of the day-to-day necessities than men by a large margin, use that power!
 
Freedom of speech is broad but not as broad as men who call women ‘broads’ want to think.  Leaving aside the thorny issues, I want to point to only one: fighting words.  The Supreme Court has held that fighting words are not a protected form of speech.  Therefore, if a man calls you a slut and you kick him in the balls, as far as the First Amendment goes, he asked for it.  I’d go one further and say that I would find it unlikely that you could even be charged with assault, even if you decided to kick him again if he is stupid enough to try to get up. 
 
That covers the protection issue.  But what about the manners issue?  A man calls you a slut, do you have the responsibility to kick him in the balls?  As with most things of this kind, the answer depends.  If you are wearing really good shoes or if you are wearing a skirt that doesn’t allow you to use your knees instead of your feet then, no.  In that is the case the responsible thing to do is use your fist or some heavy object nearby if you would rather not touch him.  A baseball bat would be a bit too much, a smartphone too expensive, but a handbag (expensive or not) would be fine as would just about any tool in a toolbox minus the hammer – he needs to suffer but using something more likely to lead to an ambulance could turn him into a sympathetic victim rather than just a pathetic writhing little boy that got what he asked for.
 
What about sticks and stones?  That’s good advice for a five year old, but adults understand that childhood axioms do not necessarily make good sense all the time.  In the specific case, it should be sticks to stones – call her a slut, she swings a stick at your stones (it’s the new version of the old ‘rule of thumb’).  After millions of years of evolution men’s testes are still, let’s say, under-protected given what they do biologically.  It seems to be biology’s way of saying to the female of the species, if he gets out of line, I’ve left you a pretty handy target instead of tucking it up inside where it probably belongs. 
 
Second, push to have a women’s health exemption in Congress.  The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has a religious exemption whereby a religious organization (like the Salvation Army) cannot be sued for not hiring people with whom they disagree (like gay people) – in a less snarky sense, it means that a Synagogue cannot be sued for refusing to hire a neo-Nazi.  Meaning that the exemption, by and large, makes sense.  Men have an interest in women’s health but it should stop at “we need to make women’s access to medical professionals as easy as possible.”  Beyond that, it isn’t our business.  This goes so far beyond the abortion debate it stopped being laughable long ago.  No largely male legislature has any right to stand in your way of your access to health care for your body.  Insist on an extra-governmental body made entirely of women. Decide once and for all about contraception, abortion, mammograms, and all other matters regarding gynecological care.  If you want to hear from male experts on one subject or another, fine.  However any male that attempts to lobby this group (or enlists some turn-coat female to do the same) will be stripped of voting rights in perpetuity and you may as well throw in that he has to get permission from his mom or appointed guardian before he can have sex again.  Congress will have no say over who is in the organization and will not have a vote on anything that comes from it.  The Fed makes interest rate decisions that affect the whole planet with no input from Congress.  The Women’s Health Reserve can be given the same authority. 
 
Third, Planned Parenthood, change your name.  If 97% of what you do is NOT provide abortions, then something as simple as a name change could go a long way to solving all your ills.  A store called “Pre-Adolescent Entertainment” would not really be all that inviting even if you gave away some of the entertainment for free.  Call it Toys (backwards R) Us and suddenly you don’t have to explain what you do, people know by the catchy name and you don’t have to bother with giveaways or have to go begging for attention/funding.  I recommend Savin’ Ta-ta’s –n- Mor.  If you will notice, even men in power don’t bother with ‘women’s health’ in non-election years.  And most men would rather not think of women’s health at all since we know it’s not really our business.  However, to stick it to the legislators and to get the mass of men to back you, just change the name.  Thinking about women’s health or planning for parenthood is a drag and can’t fit on a bumpersticker.  If we could, we’d rather not be bothered.  But tell men you’re working to save ta-tas and suddenly he’s giving you money.  Also by ignoring all spelling rules, shortening and to n, and using a kind of off color word, you’re saying that you’re hip, and what you do you do so fast and well you don’t have to bother with proper grammar.  You also imply that there is more to the story than just ta-tas without actually explaining what that might be – like what’s in a woman’s purse, some things are best left only implied.  If legislators want to cut your funding you just have to make an announcement that they are putting ta-tas at risk and your funding is restored.  But if you do it right, men will hand you money anyway so you can remove the need for legislative funding altogether (I’m not saying that is necessarily a good thing, but it is one way to get those ta-ta endangering men out of the way for good that doesn’t require shooting them).
 
Fourth, to the wives of the legislators who are passing laws or trying to pass laws that roll back the clock to the 15th century … divorce him and fleece him.  To the daughters of same, smack the shit out of him.  It would be great if you didn’t have to pick sides, but sides have been drawn and he is the one who drew the line.  So whatever he may be in general, he is seriously wrong on this front and staying with him is staying on the wrong side of the debate.  On second thought there might be a faster way.  Get an annulment.  Your grounds, Catholic or not, are that your husband has by his actions become a member of the Catholic priesthood and since they cannot be married (and take vows of poverty) you cannot be married to him any longer.  Suddenly you get the kids, house, cars and whatever cash he has.  Also, priests are in shorter supply.  This move could solve several problems in one blow.  To the sons of these men, learn from the women around you that power without respect is another definition of bullying,  Don’t side with the bully.
 
Finally, you need to create a whitelist of all women who have gone along with any of the legislation to date.  A whitelist is different from a blacklist in the intended purpose.  Blacklists are meant to keep people out.  A woman is a woman regardless of her voting record and she should not be blocked from activities because of that.  However, she must not be allowed to shy away from the responsibility she has because of it, so a whitelist is a shaming device.  Gay people need to have one for anyone that has tried to use being gay for cynical reasons (Lance Bass coming out of the closet despite it not really being a secret but announcing at the same time a decision was being made whether to air a pilot of his television show) or for anti-gay politicians or other ‘leaders’ who have been outed.  They are gay, but should never be able to escape the damage their behavior caused (Lance Bass didn’t really cause any harm, he just tried to profit off of it, but bad taste is certainly a cause for shame, just not necessarily to the same level as a Larry Craig or Ted Haggard)

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
9
Thought-Provoking
9
Fun to Read
6
Well-Organized
6
Post a Comment
April 04, 2012
Wow man that is quite the the write up man, "Freedom of speech is broad but not as broad as men who call women ‘broads' want to think".
 
1
About the reviewer
Paul Savage ()
Ranked #58
I name and describe everything and classify most things. If 'it' already had a name, the one I just gave it is better.
About this topic

Wiki

Tags

Details

© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists