Misogyny and Sexism in the News

JustJo · 12-02-2010, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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!

DapperButch · 12-02-2010, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJo

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.

Soon · 12-02-2010, 11:16 PM

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

Good luck with the red tape!

DapperButch · 12-13-2010, 10:28 PM

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.

betenoire · 12-28-2010, 01:09 AM

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?

atomiczombie · 12-28-2010, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betenoire

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?

Soon · 01-04-2011, 07:50 AM

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.

DapperButch · 01-04-2011, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betenoire

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.

Soon · 01-12-2011, 04:44 PM

Bed 18
by J. Malcolm Garcia, January 2011

12-13-2010, 10:28 PM	#4
DapperButch Roadster Guy How Do You Identify?: FTM, Stone Butch Preferred Pronoun?: He Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northeast Posts: 7,745 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 26,545 Thanked 26,814 Times in 5,772 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	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?

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 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: The Chemical Valley Posts: 4,086 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 3,312 Thanked 8,739 Times in 2,565 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	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? __________________ bête noire \bet-NWAHR\, noun: One that is particularly disliked or that is to be avoided.

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 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	Warning: Article concerns Afghan women who set themselves on fire to protest their social status. Bed 18 by J. Malcolm Garcia, January 2011

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 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	I don't understand why people change their names in the first place. Good luck with the red tape!

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 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	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.