Butch Femme Planet  

Go Back   Butch Femme Planet > POLITICS, CULTURE, NEWS, MEDIA > Celebrity, Music, Television, Internet Culture

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2010, 12:45 PM   #1
JustJo
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
pushy broad
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
Follow your heart; it knows things your mind cannot explain.
 
1 Highscore

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southeast corner
Posts: 5,633
Thanks: 24,417
Thanked 25,406 Times in 4,660 Posts
Rep Power: 21474857
JustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST ReputationJustJo Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DapperButch View Post
Jo - did they end up not letting you have a license, or were you just not allowed to get one of those "secure" ones. Here my friend was able to still get one without that info., but it expired one year early and wasn't "secure" or some such crap.
Hi Dapper,

They sent me home for more documentation...wouldn't do anything without full documents.

Luckily I found my most recent marriage license and (miracle of miracles) it had my maiden name on it as well as my previous married name....sooooo back to the office I went, and am now the holder of an actual FL driver's license. Woot!

If that one document hadn't included the maiden name I'd have been literally writing to Australia and praying I could get something that would make them happy. I was married in a podunk town in middle-of-nowhere Queensland in the 1980s by a marriage celebrant (who left our wedding and went home to shoot his wife in the leg....whole other story)....and just don't have the official sealed, stamped, notarized stuff they wanted here. Our marriage license was handwritten by the celebrant....which was good enough for Australia at that time.

What a pain in the neck!
__________________
I'm not tall enough to ride emotional roller coasters
JustJo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JustJo For This Useful Post:
Old 12-02-2010, 07:19 PM   #2
DapperButch
Roadster Guy

How Do You Identify?:
FTM, Stone Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
He
 
DapperButch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 7,745
Thanks: 26,545
Thanked 26,814 Times in 5,772 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
DapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo View Post
Hi Dapper,

They sent me home for more documentation...wouldn't do anything without full documents.

Luckily I found my most recent marriage license and (miracle of miracles) it had my maiden name on it as well as my previous married name....sooooo back to the office I went, and am now the holder of an actual FL driver's license. Woot!

If that one document hadn't included the maiden name I'd have been literally writing to Australia and praying I could get something that would make them happy. I was married in a podunk town in middle-of-nowhere Queensland in the 1980s by a marriage celebrant (who left our wedding and went home to shoot his wife in the leg....whole other story)....and just don't have the official sealed, stamped, notarized stuff they wanted here. Our marriage license was handwritten by the celebrant....which was good enough for Australia at that time.

What a pain in the neck!
Geez. Thank God that document had what was needed. Would have sucked worse! Glad it worked out.
__________________
-Dapper

Are you educated or indoctrinated?
DapperButch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 11:16 PM   #3
Soon
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
femme
Relationship Status:
attached
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,896
Thanks: 29,046
Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
Soon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST Reputation
Default

I don't understand why people change their names in the first place.

Good luck with the red tape!
Soon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2010, 10:28 PM   #4
DapperButch
Roadster Guy

How Do You Identify?:
FTM, Stone Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
He
 
DapperButch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 7,745
Thanks: 26,545
Thanked 26,814 Times in 5,772 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
DapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST Reputation
Default

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl..._lnk3%7C189819

I missed the above mentioned review last month. Sorry if the topic has already been discussed elsewhere. This crap just ticks me off.

It is good to hear that she was able to take it in stride, especially when she has a history of an eating disorder, and also good to hear that she got a lot of support around the negative comment.
__________________
-Dapper

Are you educated or indoctrinated?
DapperButch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DapperButch For This Useful Post:
Old 12-28-2010, 01:09 AM   #5
betenoire
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Satan in a Sunday Hat
Preferred Pronoun?:
Maow
Relationship Status:
Married
 
betenoire's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Chemical Valley
Posts: 4,086
Thanks: 3,312
Thanked 8,739 Times in 2,565 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856
betenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputationbetenoire Has the BEST Reputation
Default

This made me really unhappy:

Apparently now letting your daughters aged 12 and under get stuff waxed is "the new normal"

Just fan fucking tastic. I am especially upset by the mention of getting girls waxed before they even develop pubic hair because apparently that will keep them from -ever- getting it. It's abusive and exploitative.

What the hell is so wrong with body hair, anyway?
__________________
bęte noire \bet-NWAHR\, noun: One that is particularly disliked or that is to be avoided.
betenoire is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to betenoire For This Useful Post:
Old 12-28-2010, 01:20 AM   #6
atomiczombie
Member

How Do You Identify?:
Femmesensual Transguy
Preferred Pronoun?:
He, Him, His
Relationship Status:
Dating
 
atomiczombie's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rio Vista, CA
Posts: 1,225
Thanks: 3,949
Thanked 3,221 Times in 759 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853
atomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputationatomiczombie Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by betenoire View Post
This made me really unhappy:

Apparently now letting your daughters aged 12 and under get stuff waxed is "the new normal"

Just fan fucking tastic. I am especially upset by the mention of getting girls waxed before they even develop pubic hair because apparently that will keep them from -ever- getting it. It's abusive and exploitative.

What the hell is so wrong with body hair, anyway?
That is really disgusting to sexualize a minor in that way. What mom in her right mind would do such a thing?
atomiczombie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to atomiczombie For This Useful Post:
Old 01-04-2011, 07:50 AM   #7
Soon
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
femme
Relationship Status:
attached
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,896
Thanks: 29,046
Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
Soon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That would seem to include protection against exactly the kind of discrimination to which Scalia referred.

Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.

"In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."

Greenberger added that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced.

"In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."

In 1996, Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission.
Soon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Soon For This Useful Post:
Old 01-04-2011, 05:35 PM   #8
DapperButch
Roadster Guy

How Do You Identify?:
FTM, Stone Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
He
 
DapperButch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 7,745
Thanks: 26,545
Thanked 26,814 Times in 5,772 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
DapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by betenoire View Post
This made me really unhappy:

Apparently now letting your daughters aged 12 and under get stuff waxed is "the new normal"

Just fan fucking tastic. I am especially upset by the mention of getting girls waxed before they even develop pubic hair because apparently that will keep them from -ever- getting it. It's abusive and exploitative.

What the hell is so wrong with body hair, anyway?
This is really, really disturbing to me. Bikini waxes on children? There should be a freaking law about that. To me, that is sexualizing a child.
__________________
-Dapper

Are you educated or indoctrinated?
DapperButch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DapperButch For This Useful Post:
Old 01-12-2011, 04:44 PM   #9
Soon
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
femme
Relationship Status:
attached
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,896
Thanks: 29,046
Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
Soon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST Reputation
Default Warning: Article concerns Afghan women who set themselves on fire to protest their social status.

Bed 18
by J. Malcolm Garcia, January 2011
Soon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Soon For This Useful Post:
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:36 AM.


ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018