![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/14/us-judge-victims-body-prevent-rape?INTCMP=SRCH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012
I'm hoping that these sort of stories are merely detailing the slow death of such ossified pre-lapsarian opinions, and that the rest of this apparently insane generation of mysogynistic men unaware of even basic reproductive biology will keep their ignorant opinions to themselves.
So, here are questions mainly for the women on this comm: do you think that things are getting better, and such opinions as these are becoming marginalised? Or is this indicative of such opinions becoming resurgent? Do folk think that religions have anything to do with these sort of views?
That some men holding such opinions are still in positions of power and authority is a shame on our society: but is the media outrage that greets such men, each time they open their mouths to insert a foot in up to the Achilles tendon, merely lip-service to the sensibilities of other men and women who have some knowledge of reproductive biology and can actually think? Or is it symptomatic of a more profound shift in the way society views stupid men with unscientific shared-in-the-gents-lavatory reality-denying sexist opinions which they are prepared to act upon, and speak out about, as if fact?
IMHO superior court Judge Derek Johnson, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, et al, need a damn good whipping, or at least a day in the pillory or stocks. I mean to say, stupid people in positions of authority or power who hold factually incorrect and archaic views that impact detrimentally upon modern individuals, minorities, and society itself, could do with (ahem) educational modification using outmoded punishments: it's the only language that such folk seem to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012
I'm hoping that these sort of stories are merely detailing the slow death of such ossified pre-lapsarian opinions, and that the rest of this apparently insane generation of mysogynistic men unaware of even basic reproductive biology will keep their ignorant opinions to themselves.
So, here are questions mainly for the women on this comm: do you think that things are getting better, and such opinions as these are becoming marginalised? Or is this indicative of such opinions becoming resurgent? Do folk think that religions have anything to do with these sort of views?
That some men holding such opinions are still in positions of power and authority is a shame on our society: but is the media outrage that greets such men, each time they open their mouths to insert a foot in up to the Achilles tendon, merely lip-service to the sensibilities of other men and women who have some knowledge of reproductive biology and can actually think? Or is it symptomatic of a more profound shift in the way society views stupid men with unscientific shared-in-the-gents-lavatory reality-denying sexist opinions which they are prepared to act upon, and speak out about, as if fact?
IMHO superior court Judge Derek Johnson, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, et al, need a damn good whipping, or at least a day in the pillory or stocks. I mean to say, stupid people in positions of authority or power who hold factually incorrect and archaic views that impact detrimentally upon modern individuals, minorities, and society itself, could do with (ahem) educational modification using outmoded punishments: it's the only language that such folk seem to understand.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 13:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 13:57 (UTC)"There's a reasonable chance that the case could get thrown out on appeal from the prosecutor." I meant to say that the sentence wasn't nearly severe enough and could be retried for a tougher sentence. Not being a lawyer I have no idea what that would take, or if its even feasible.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 15:18 (UTC)They're fringe viewpoints and are clearly treated as such. That's not even a question.
Do folk think that religions have anything to do with these sort of views?
Nothing, no. This is not religious teaching.
That some men holding such opinions are still in positions of power and authority is a shame on our society
Agreed, but rape is also not a topic of much relevance to most. It's worse that a judge believes this and rules accordingly than a Congressperson, for example. Even if Akin believed what he believed, he wouldn't have worked to decriminalize rape. The judge believing as such and acting in accordance has that impact.
IMHO superior court Judge Derek Johnson, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, et al, need a damn good whipping, or at least a day in the pillory or stocks.
Yes on Johnson and Akin, but Mourdock does not deserve to be in the same breath as them (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/10/because-we-are-as-ross-douthat-points-out-a-nation-of-heretics.html). He got really screwed by a religiously illiterate media and population.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 16:30 (UTC)A woman should have a right to choose whether or not she wishes to become pregnant: pregnancy from rape interferes with that right. Who brings up the child? The mother may not wish to be reminded of the rape every time she looks at her enforced offspring. Who pays for the child? Your tax-dollars? Or the mother, who in addition to having undergone the trauma of rape, now must be prepared to let her body undergo pregnancy (which is not trivial, and can be hugely damaging) at the expense of whatever other wishes and desires she may have had, and on top of that, will have to bring up a child, and pay for it.
Let's not talk of the religious aspects of this, merely the practical and fiscal ones; and the ones appertaining to the individual woman's right to choose how to organise and plan her life.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 16:39 (UTC)Then remove your question about religion out of the post.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 16:41 (UTC)Close reading of Jeff's comment to which this is a reply might help.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 17:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 17:06 (UTC)Still, the practical questions remain: who brings up the child, and who pays for it?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 17:52 (UTC)You can't have it both ways.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 17:52 (UTC)Why not? The guy was not defending rape, apologizing for rape, claiming that rape was anything worse than bad.
Let's not talk of the religious aspects of this, merely the practical and fiscal ones; and the ones appertaining to the individual woman's right to choose how to organise and plan her life.
In the case of Mourdock, the religious aspects are crucial to understanding the position. Whether there should be a rape exemption if abortion were to be outlawed is a debate in and of itself, but Mourdock is not an extremist and should not be bundled in with idiots like Akin.
Keep in mind, as well, the philsophical argument. Those against abortion? It's not an issue of a "woman's right to choose," but an issue of an innocent being snuffed out.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 17:58 (UTC)And the theistic approach to law is enshrined where in the Constitution?
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 18:01 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 16:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 17:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 18:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 17:49 (UTC)Now, I would suggest that these nutjobs do not represent the majority of practicing Christians in the U.S. The big issue that we collectively have is the unwillingness to criticize these lunatics and not vote for them.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 18:00 (UTC)This was my point, if it got lost.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 18:02 (UTC)Consistancy, surely.
(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 19:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 19:47 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 19:08 (UTC)"I said life is precious. I believe life is precious. I believe rape is a brutal act. It is something that I abhor. That anyone could come away with any meaning other than what I just said is regrettable, and for that I apologize," Mourdock said, according to The Indianapolis Star's account of his news conference Wednesday.
'If they came away with any impression other than that I truly regret it, I apologize," he said. "I've certainly been humbled by the fact that so many people think that somehow was an interpretation."
The big issue that we collectively have is the unwillingness to criticize these lunatics and not vote for them.
I thought that the condemnation of Akin was rather universal, was it not?
(no subject)
Date: 15/12/12 21:44 (UTC)Okay, perhaps Mourdoch did apologize, of a sort. Somehow I missed that. He never clarified his position, though- but maybe after that he couldn't without seeming like even more of an asshat. And really that was a poor apology- saying, "that anyone could come away with any meaning other than what I just said is regrettable" sifts the blame away from him and onto his critics. It is insincere and douchebaggy.
(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 00:30 (UTC)In regards to Mourdock, it wouldn't have mattered what he said in his apology. Those who took his comments as him saying that God planned rapes wouldn't have been swayed by any apology or alternate meaning to his comments. Even if they would have, they likely wouldn't have heard about it anyways, because the didn't care to.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 14/12/12 16:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/12/12 04:45 (UTC)