Story #1

 

http://www.statepress.com/2012/03/12/senate-judiciary-committee-endorses-controversial-contraceptive-bill/

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

 

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

 

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the  Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

 

Lesko said this bill responds to a contraceptive mandate in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law March 2010.

 

“My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion,” Lesko said. “All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.”

 

Story#2

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html

Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.

 

"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

 

The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

 

Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.

 

"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

29 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

If you take these examples and a few others that have been near the top of UK politics, then they all have one thing in common. They all tried to act hard. Like guys. Whether it’s the Iron Lady, the hostile environment, Nandy wanting coppers to batter Scottish nationalists, Mahmood putting Nick Griffin to shame. If they had society’s normal gender roles, they wouldn’t get anywhere near the top. It’s all still part of the patriarchy which is needing smashed

Truss would be the exception, as she’s incapable of any type of coherent thought or strategy.

Well, yes, because they (and I'd include Sturgeon etc in Scotland) couldn't possibly have been in the position they were in without those principles. Essentially what Chomsky said to/about Andrew Marr.

Your initial post appeared to equate that Clinton or Harris instead of Trump would in some way work towards ending patriarchy, rather than having nothing whatsoever to do with it.

4 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Your initial post appeared to equate that Clinton or Harris instead of Trump would in some way work towards ending patriarchy, rather than having nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I didn't think they’d end it but it is the reason they never got the job.

Clinton lost because she was a crook, and Harris lost because she was the village idiot. Nothing to do with them being women.

15 minutes ago, Jupiter said:

Clinton lost because she was a crook, and Harris lost because she was the village idiot. Nothing to do with them being women.

I think when looking at village idiots, the incumbent is top of the class compared to any actual or potential challengers.....or anyone on here.....or most people anywhere.

It's also pretty obvious said incumbent is a bugger crook than most.

So I'm afraid that argument doesn't really wash with me.

And I don't agree Kamala Harris is an idiot.

35 minutes ago, Jupiter said:

Clinton lost because she was a crook, and Harris lost because she was the village idiot. Nothing to do with them being women.

My point being made beautifully here

6 hours ago, Mason89 said:

I didn't think they’d end it but it is the reason they never got the job.

It isn't. Clinton got the most votes. She lost because of gerrymandering and vote manipulation.

The reason they got to where they were was because of their role in patriarchy, not the opposite. They can hardly complain about the rules of a game that they used to their benefit. Clinton "beat" Sanders in the democratic primary using some of the same methods that the republicans (who are far, far better at it) did to prevent her from winning.

Clinton lost because she was held to a different standard than Trump

Yes! A public execution!

Surely if Harris was so great her own party would have invoked the right to remove Biden who was clearly not mentally fit for office a long time before the election to allow her time to show what she could do. Perhaps the voters in the swing states took that as a sign that the Democrats didn’t even think she was a suitable candidate.

8 hours ago, southshoredon said:

Surely if Harris was so great her own party would have invoked the right to remove Biden who was clearly not mentally fit for office a long time before the election to allow her time to show what she could do. Perhaps the voters in the swing states took that as a sign that the Democrats didn’t even think she was a suitable candidate.

There’s that different standard.

12 hours ago, Mason89 said:

Clinton lost because she was held to a different standard than Trump

She lost because of voter cross check and other nefarious activities. She was held to a different standard, because as a seasoned member of the patriarchy, she wasn't particularly convincing in its arguments. Neither Harris. Neither Bernie Sanders. If she's going to try and win whilst being a warmongering, neoliberal zealot, then she either needs to be a lot more zealoty or better at the arguments. There's a reason why Le Pen and Meloni had no problems winning large numbers of votes, just as a strong right wing female would win for the Republicans. I find it bizarre that you think either Clinton or Harris were credible candidates for the manifesto they were selling (big business, finance, neoliberal dogma).

I don’t recall say either were credible. I thought both were incredibly poor candidates. Again though, they were up against a narcissistic vegetable who rapes women and almost certainly children. Harris in particular was triple fucked, on account of being communist, black and female

I wouldnt argue about the mechanics of how they both got to where they did but they were clearly held to a different standard by the electorate & Donstalk posters

2 hours ago, Mason89 said:

Harris in particular was triple fucked, on account of being communist, black and female

Not sure that being black would hold her back given how popular Obama was.

2 hours ago, Mason89 said:

I don’t recall say either were credible. I thought both were incredibly poor candidates. Again though, they were up against a narcissistic vegetable who rapes women and almost certainly children. Harris in particular was triple fucked, on account of being communist, black and female

I wouldnt argue about the mechanics of how they both got to where they did but they were clearly held to a different standard by the electorate & Donstalk posters

All democrats are held to a different standard on here. As they should be. It's implicit in what they pretend to stand for. They're being judged against expectations, not against the republican candidate.

19 hours ago, Jupiter said:

Clinton lost because she was a crook, and Harris lost because she was the village idiot. Nothing to do with them being women.

100%

They're dumb as fuck and don't realise it. You can take that any way you please since self-awareness doesn't seem to be a trait to the ones it really applies to.

1 hour ago, Toe_poke said:

They're dumb as fuck and don't realise it. You can take that any way you please since self-awareness doesn't seem to be a trait to the ones it really applies to.

This seems like the sort of shite folk post on Twitter. You know that there's a quote function that you can use to help people understand: which post you're responding to; who you think is dumb as fuck; who can take it any way they please; and who self-awareness doesn't apply to.

The double standard that I think @Mason89 is referring to is that "dumb as fuck" and "self awareness" is not applied to imbeciles like Donald Trump, or even Joe Biden, when it comes to being voted for. I don't entirely agree, but I can at least attempt to respond to the question.

2 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

100%

There’s psychology behind this that you 100% won’t be interested in.

You have to believe that this is right though, as it makes it easier to square away the fact you knowingly voted for a child molester. The brain looks after itself.

This’ll shock you but Trump was an even bigger crook and a bigger idiot by any metric you want to measure it.

21 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

100%

Oh no......we've got double-edgy now!!

18 hours ago, Mason89 said:

There’s psychology behind this that you 100% won’t be interested in.

You have to believe that this is right though, as it makes it easier to square away the fact you knowingly voted for a child molester. The brain looks after itself.

This’ll shock you but Trump was an even bigger crook and a bigger idiot by any metric you want to measure it.

Yes.....but.......edgy!!

That's important.