Comments on: What People Want http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/ Just another WordPress weblog Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:36:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: DeadMan http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447414 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:09:06 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447414 "I’m too loud and squishy to be trophy wife material - is there any room left in Strassel’s tent for people like me?" Not a trophy wife? there is no room in the tent for sure, hell you're not even real to these people, acording to them you're a made up idea that the damn dirty liberals created :) just like seperation of church and state. and gay people being actual humans ... just a bunch of made up ideas that scare them. DeadMan “I’m too loud and squishy to be trophy wife material - is there any room left in Strassel’s tent for people like me?”

Not a trophy wife? there is no room in the tent for sure, hell you’re not even real to these people, acording to them you’re a made up idea that the damn dirty liberals created :)

just like seperation of church and state. and gay people being actual humans … just a bunch of made up ideas that scare them.

DeadMan

]]> by: Marle http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447384 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:11:56 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447384 The standard deduction for a married couple is not twice as much as the standard deduction for a single person, even though there are, obviously, twice as many people in a couple. That is the most obvious example of the marriage penalty, though I'm sure there's more if you do the math. It was originally designed that way when women were expected to be housewives, but if you make roughly the same amount as your husband (I can't be the only one who does) then you will get back less than if you could file single, irregardless of what class you are. Removing it will also help married women who don't make what their husbands make - since their deduction will be higher, too. Feminists should really be against the marriage penalty, because it seems obvious from a feminist point of view that punishing women (and their families) for marrying men they have similar incomes to is a bad thing. The standard deduction for a married couple is not twice as much as the standard deduction for a single person, even though there are, obviously, twice as many people in a couple. That is the most obvious example of the marriage penalty, though I’m sure there’s more if you do the math. It was originally designed that way when women were expected to be housewives, but if you make roughly the same amount as your husband (I can’t be the only one who does) then you will get back less than if you could file single, irregardless of what class you are. Removing it will also help married women who don’t make what their husbands make - since their deduction will be higher, too. Feminists should really be against the marriage penalty, because it seems obvious from a feminist point of view that punishing women (and their families) for marrying men they have similar incomes to is a bad thing.

]]> by: deep6 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447202 Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:44:52 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447202 I'm a woman and I know what I want: Other women to *stop* fucking speaking for me, telling total strangers what I want. I don't care if it's Barbara DeAngelis and her bullshit hetero relationship advice, or hypocrite white-privilege rich anorexic hags like Kim what's-her-face claiming to have the "in" on women's political needs. Fuck her and the horse she rode in on. I’m a woman and I know what I want: Other women to *stop* fucking speaking for me, telling total strangers what I want. I don’t care if it’s Barbara DeAngelis and her bullshit hetero relationship advice, or hypocrite white-privilege rich anorexic hags like Kim what’s-her-face claiming to have the “in” on women’s political needs.

Fuck her and the horse she rode in on.

]]> by: Isua http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447148 Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:43:18 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447148 I'm just staggered by her calling the Violence Against Women Act a "culture-war touchpoint." I’m just staggered by her calling the Violence Against Women Act a “culture-war touchpoint.”

]]> by: micheyd http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447128 Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:53:33 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447128 I'm aware of their motivation, Mark, but with all her complaining that it's a "stale" issue, the GOP sure makes a big issue of it themselves. Hasn't nearly every repub candidate (save Giuliani) said they'd overturn RvW? I guess it's their strategy - you Dems shouldn't care about that silly, old-fashioned issue...but our pandering to the far-right on abortion still key to us. Hmm. I’m aware of their motivation, Mark, but with all her complaining that it’s a “stale” issue, the GOP sure makes a big issue of it themselves. Hasn’t nearly every repub candidate (save Giuliani) said they’d overturn RvW? I guess it’s their strategy - you Dems shouldn’t care about that silly, old-fashioned issue…but our pandering to the far-right on abortion still key to us. Hmm.

]]> by: Mark Foxwell http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447126 Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:36:26 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447126 micheyd: But they can't and they won't leave them alone, because reproductive rights strike right at the roots of the dominator paradigm, which is why patriarchial societies crusaded for millenia to try and erase the crude BC/abortifacent techniques developed even longer ago than that, and create an ethical code that tries to pre-empt them with creationist mysticism that flies in the face of empirical wisdom also developed in days of yore. micheyd:

But they can’t and they won’t leave them alone, because reproductive rights strike right at the roots of the dominator paradigm, which is why patriarchial societies crusaded for millenia to try and erase the crude BC/abortifacent techniques developed even longer ago than that, and create an ethical code that tries to pre-empt them with creationist mysticism that flies in the face of empirical wisdom also developed in days of yore.

]]> by: micheyd http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447121 Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:58:49 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447121 You know, reproductive rights *would* be a stale issue if the theofascist Republicans would leave it the fuck alone. You know, reproductive rights *would* be a stale issue if the theofascist Republicans would leave it the fuck alone.

]]> by: Samantha Vimes http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447115 Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:09:05 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447115 I am glad but not at all surprised to see the people here understand tax code so much better than almost anyone I know in real life who doesn't do taxes for a living. My dad was a bookkeeper/tax preparer/accountant. I know how tax brackets work, but trying to convince people of it is annoyingly difficult. I am glad but not at all surprised to see the people here understand tax code so much better than almost anyone I know in real life who doesn’t do taxes for a living. My dad was a bookkeeper/tax preparer/accountant. I know how tax brackets work, but trying to convince people of it is annoyingly difficult.

]]> by: a little night musing http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447096 Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:20:05 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447096 // The rest of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job, these culture-war touchpoints aren’t their top voting priority. Their biggest concerns, not surprisingly, hew closely to those of their male counterparts: the war in Iraq, health care, the economy. But following close behind are issues that are more unique to working women and mothers. Therein rests the GOP opportunity. [end quote] I really like the idea that the only women who have a real care for or need for reproductive rights protection are post-menopausal.// I really like (in the sense of "really find appalling") the idea that as a woman of roughly Hilary's age, I don't care about health care or reproductive rights. Where was this writer when I was raising my son as a single mother, and trying not only to "hold down a job" but somehow make a career for myself? Does she really think these are concerns of women her age only? Does she really believe that I can easily forget having to make choices over and over between feeding my child and getting necessary medical care for myself? I'm not all that glad that Hillary seems to be the front runner-designate, but it's not for the reasons indicated here. // The rest of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job, these culture-war touchpoints aren’t their top voting priority. Their biggest concerns, not surprisingly, hew closely to those of their male counterparts: the war in Iraq, health care, the economy. But following close behind are issues that are more unique to working women and mothers. Therein rests the GOP opportunity. [end quote]

I really like the idea that the only women who have a real care for or need for reproductive rights protection are post-menopausal.//

I really like (in the sense of “really find appalling”) the idea that as a woman of roughly Hilary’s age, I don’t care about health care or reproductive rights.

Where was this writer when I was raising my son as a single mother, and trying not only to “hold down a job” but somehow make a career for myself? Does she really think these are concerns of women her age only? Does she really believe that I can easily forget having to make choices over and over between feeding my child and getting necessary medical care for myself?

I’m not all that glad that Hillary seems to be the front runner-designate, but it’s not for the reasons indicated here.

]]> by: Jovan1984 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447069 Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:50:44 +0100 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/31/5988/#comment-447069 Many people who have a working brain knows that the GOP is the Party of the Sexists. Some say that the GOP's anti-female policies started in 1980, when they removed the Equal Rights Amendment from their platform. Many others say that the Grand Ole Party's misogynist agenda began in 1973 after the Roe v. Wade decision. And all of us who brand the GOP as the Misogynist Party are correct. It doesn't matter if the misogynist Christofascist movement began in 1980, 1973, or 1776 -- the fact and the matter is the Republican Party are anti-woman at every turn. If the Democrats use their heads, they will repeatedly brand the Republicans are women-haters. And BTW, it is the Republicans' view of women's issues that are in a time warp. The GOP's view of women's issues are stuck in the Stone Age. The Democrats are proving with the reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment (now called the Women's Equality Amendment) that the year may say 2007, but in actuality, we are stuck in 1807. And contrary to what the sexist Republicans say, Sen. Hillary Clinton gets her greatest female support from my age group: ages 18-30. Many people who have a working brain knows that the GOP is the Party of the Sexists. Some say that the GOP’s anti-female policies started in 1980, when they removed the Equal Rights Amendment from their platform. Many others say that the Grand Ole Party’s misogynist agenda began in 1973 after the Roe v. Wade decision. And all of us who brand the GOP as the Misogynist Party are correct. It doesn’t matter if the misogynist Christofascist movement began in 1980, 1973, or 1776 — the fact and the matter is the Republican Party are anti-woman at every turn.

If the Democrats use their heads, they will repeatedly brand the Republicans are women-haters. And BTW, it is the Republicans’ view of women’s issues that are in a time warp. The GOP’s view of women’s issues are stuck in the Stone Age. The Democrats are proving with the reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment (now called the Women’s Equality Amendment) that the year may say 2007, but in actuality, we are stuck in 1807.

And contrary to what the sexist Republicans say, Sen. Hillary Clinton gets her greatest female support from my age group: ages 18-30.

]]>