A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Mr Mystery]

I thought we were espousing universal gun control, not gender based gun control?

And the fact remains. There have been numerous times in my life I've felt the red mist come down. Hell, once I barely escaped arrest, like literally skin of my teeth, and that was only because the Rozzers turned up after I'd calmed down a bit. Introduce a gun to that situation, and who knows what would of happened in the end. I could still be in Chokey for murder, or perhaps I'd be pushing up the Daisies on account I was the one shot.

[Houghten]

What country, state, city or whatever doesn't recognize assault, rape, robbery, and murder as crimes?

The ones that don't recognise rape as rape. When it gets handwaved away with "boys will be boys" or "you must have invited it" or "but you're his wife" then the problem behaviours aren't being recognised as problems.

[DWest]

What country, state, city or whatever doesn't recognize assault, rape, robbery, and murder as crimes? Anywhere in the state I live in my wife or daughter or legally defend themselves with lethal force if they faced a reasonable threat of imminent death or bodily harm at the hands of another person.

Minnesota, for one. See [URL="http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/30/where-was-stand-your-ground-for-marissa-alexander"]here[/URL].

[Psychosplodge]

Unfortunately your personal opinion doesn't trump the supreme court's. The individuals in question were being forced to spend money on specific health insurance plans for their employees or those specific people were going to be punished by the federal govt for failure to do so. It's a privately held company, where do you think the money they would have been fined would come from? The owners. Who signs the paychecks that the employees get? The owners. A private company doesn't exist by itself in a vaccuum.

But thats the entire point of a company, to exist as a separate independent entity to the individual.
The individuals were being asked to pay for nothing.
The corporation is failing in its responsibility.

[Morgrim]

My logic is that if someone's religious rights come into conflict with another's medical rights, the medical rights should ALWAYS take priority. Always. Because faith is something that is personal, changeable, and has a habit of conflicting with evidence and evidence is always better.

[Morgrim]

[url=http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/]The Rise of the DIY Abortion in Texas[/url]
For anyone that still thinks that what the US politicians are doing is the 'right thing', please read this and see the truth. I greatly admire those people who are helping the women trapped in this unfortunate situation. I know that I've studied what plants I can get hold of in my local area that have an abortifactant effect, but given how nasty and toxic many are having a safe alternative would be much more comforting.

Also Chrome please stop telling me that 'abortifactant' isn't a word and trying to correct it to 'anti-abortion'. I am very, very PRO choice and think that no woman should ever be forced to be pregnant when she doesn't want to be, and that there is not a single moral or religious argument in the world that justifies turning a portion of the population into involuntary incubators.

[eldargal]

But thats the entire point of a company, to exist as a separate independent entity to the individual.
The individuals were being asked to pay for nothing.
The corporation is failing in its responsibility.

Yup. What this ruling means is now the owners of corporations get all manner of protections from individual responsibility through being incorporated AND now they get individual rights. It is obscene. And again there is no valid religious objection to birth control, these are not even abortifacient as Morgim has said. They do not work once conception has taken place. This is religious freedom used as a veil to hide the direct oppression of women. Someones boss has NO RIGHT to dictate anything about that person medical treatments. None.

This is a ruling that lets Hobby Lobby stop women from accessing medication on the basis the medication does something that it doesn't in fact do. Let me say that again: Hobby Lobby can prevent their female employees from using medication that DOES NOT DO WHAT HOBBY LOBBY THINKS IT DOES.

[URL="http://www.thenation.com/blog/180509/supreme-court-has-already-expanded-its-narrow-hobby-lobby-ruling"]Also the court announced it also applies to companies whose owners object to all 20 listed contraceptives[/URL] so the argument it only applies to teh four not-abortifacients is even more wrong than it was before. Really looking forward to how all the little turdstains trying to brush this off as legitimate reacting when Jewish and Muslim business owners demand the ability to stop their employeess buying pork, or jehovas witness employers stopping employees from getting blood transfusions etc. because they are all legimate thanks to this ruling. The only reason filth are defending it now is because it only oppresses women.

The D-Day landing no one ever tells you about:

Red Cross workers landing at Normandy on D-Day.

[Kirsten]

a fantastic article about 'strong female characters' and Trinity syndrome (essentially never being as independent as cool as they are in their introduction ever again)

[url]http://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/618-were-losing-all-our-strong-female-characters-to-tr/[/url]

[eldargal]

Really, really great article. also sadly accurate. Lost track of the times I've gone to see a film, teevee show or played a video game which looks to have strong women characters only to have them do **** all after their initial intro scene.

[Mud Duck]

Yup. What this ruling means is now the owners of corporations get all manner of protections from individual responsibility through being incorporated AND now they get individual rights. It is obscene. And again there is no valid religious objection to birth control, these are not even abortifacient as Morgim has said. They do not work once conception has taken place. This is religious freedom used as a veil to hide the direct oppression of women. Someones boss has NO RIGHT to dictate anything about that person medical treatments. None.

This is a ruling that lets Hobby Lobby stop women from accessing medication on the basis the medication does something that it doesn't in fact do. Let me say that again: Hobby Lobby can prevent their female employees from using medication that DOES NOT DO WHAT HOBBY LOBBY THINKS IT DOES.

I think that it's closer to Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for medications that does not do what Hobby Lobby thinks that it does.

[URL="http://www.thenation.com/blog/180509/supreme-court-has-already-expanded-its-narrow-hobby-lobby-ruling"]Also the court announced it also applies to companies whose owners object to all 20 listed contraceptives[/URL] so the argument it only applies to teh four not-abortifacients is even more wrong than it was before. Really looking forward to how all the little turdstains trying to brush this off as legitimate reacting when Jewish and Muslim business owners demand the ability to stop their employeess buying pork, or jehovas witness employers stopping employees from getting blood transfusions etc. because they are all legimate thanks to this ruling. The only reason filth are defending it now is because it only oppresses women.

I think this may be pushing it a little too far, companies have, for lack of a better term, no right's on a employees' rights pass it's boundaries. So, no guns/smoking/whatever on the companies property is alright, but legal habits of employees outside of those boundaries is outside the rights of the company. This ruling is more on what the company pays for and less on an expansion of the company into the rights of it workers.

The D-Day landing no one ever tells you about:

Red Cross workers landing at Normandy on D-Day.

You'd think that they would have been issued boots or something more waterproof and sharp-pointy resistant in the way of footwear.