Originally Posted By Autopia Deb OK, I'm going to break my own rule here. I am morally against abortion as a form of birth control. I think it's just selfish. HOWEVER, I believe it should be kept safe and legal and the government needs to stay out of it. All of these politicians trying to usurp my reproductive rights really are angering me. So yes I would have to agree that the actions being taken by these lawmakers are alienating more women then just those who identify a liberal.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones dshyates and Donny, your lived experienced don't matter because some activist at Georgetown wants the federal government to mandate birth control coverage and some mean old shock jock called her names. WAR ON WOMYN
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Also, the average number of children of women on welfare is just about the same as the average number of children of women who aren't. But it sure makes it easy to withdraw support based on that stereotype, doesn't it?" <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...youtu.be</a> And the news station was trying to be compassionate and highlight the suffering of this poor woman. It backfired on them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 How clueless can you be? Child support, while important, is a completely different topic. Because some men might get screwed over on child support doesn't mean women aren't getting screwed over by these various laws that are being enacted all over the country. That doesn't follow, isn't logical, and isn't intelligent. It's an attempt to minimize what's happening by bringing up another topic. Logic 101 fail.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And that link is one example. No one ever denied that some women have too many kids. This example does not somehow disprove the point that was brought up before. Perhaps you should look up the word "average."
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "It's an attempt to minimize what's happening by bringing up another topic. Logic 101 fail." Anything that fails to support the so-called imaginary war on women is disregarded.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I would add that the wrong done to many men in family court does not in anyway make these attempts at medieval legislation right. Apples and oranges, two different topics of conversation.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "This example does not somehow disprove the point that was brought up before. Perhaps you should look up the word "average."" <a href="http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/123-05.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/w...3-05.pdf</a> "Additionally, black single mothers have, on average, more children than white single mothers (Fields 2004; Rawlings 1992)." It's a citation from a larger work discussing welfare reform and its impacts. It basically concludes that the EITC helped single mothers by encouraging them to enter the workforce. "Our results showed that between 1991-2000, the EITC - a financial incentive program that provides refundable tax credits or earnings subsidies to low-income families with children - explained most of the increase in single mothers’ employment over time (between 25-30 percent). The EITC had a positive impact on employment in all of our models, and had a stronger impact for those with the least amount of education." I wonder what they were doing before that. Perhaps the stereotypes, exaggerated as they are, had some truth in them in that welfare encouraged women not to work, and that important reforms changed the incentives. People respond to incentives, imagine that. The caveat is that the author speculates that those jobs might not be "good" jobs, but she is talking about women without a high school degree so I don't know what she was expecting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Anything that fails to support the so-called imaginary war on women is disregarded.> It's a non-sequitur. You don't seem to get that. One does not justify the other. I'm sorry that dshyates got screwed over - he seems like a great guy, and he wasn't treated fairly. But how does that somehow excuse these ridiculous laws restricting women's rights? NEITHER should happen. What happened to dshyates was wrong. What's happening to women now is ALSO wrong. Ironically - and this is something that may just pass way over your head - both are caused by sexism.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"Additionally, black single mothers have, on average, more children than white single mothers (Fields 2004; Rawlings 1992)."> That does not contradict: "Also, the average number of children of women on welfare is just about the same as the average number of children of women who aren't. " "Black women" does not equal "women on welfare." How curious that you seem to think it does.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "But how does that somehow excuse these ridiculous laws restricting women's rights?" I'm not trying to excuse ridiculous laws. I'm trying to disprove a war on women. Just because there's an abortion debate in this country doesn't mean women are being warred with. It is a valid debate to argue about the merits of terminating a pregnancy. One side believes that it is MURDER and is thinking solely of the child. They have no intention to "war" with women.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones ""Black women" does not equal "women on welfare." How curious that you seem to think it does." The paper is talking about welfare!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "But how does that somehow excuse these ridiculous laws restricting women's rights?" <I'm not trying to excuse ridiculous laws. I'm trying to disprove a war on women.> And failing. <Just because there's an abortion debate in this country doesn't mean women are being warred with. It is a valid debate to argue about the merits of terminating a pregnancy. One side believes that it is MURDER and is thinking solely of the child. They have no intention to "war" with women. > But that is the result. And it's not just abortion. It's contraception - like the AZ law that would force a women to tell her boss why she's on the pill, and make a "wrong" answer a fireable offense. <The paper is talking about welfare! > That's not the stat you cited. I hope the paper was more nuanced and logical that you have been.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Black women are disproportionately on welfare. They are disproportionately single mothers. They have more children on average than white single mothers. Where do you think these stereotypes come from? Do you think people just make them up?
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb You know, until a few weeks ago I thought the very notion of there being a "war on women" quite ridiculous. A paranoid delusion of far left, militant feminists (PS, normal feminism is great in my opinion, paranoid man hating, not so much) . But with the sheer number of laws being proposed across this country trying to limit or eliminate any form of birth control for women I am finding I need to reassess that opinion. And I have to ask WTH is going on in this country? I'm not sure, but it has absolutely nothing to do with welfare moms and dads who are losing their rights in family court.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Black women are disproportionately on welfare. They are disproportionately single mothers. They have more children on average than white single mothers.> None of which disproves the initial point. <Where do you think these stereotypes come from? Do you think people just make them up? > I think some people take stats like that and use them to justify all sorts of things in their minds. Obviously.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Want more black women off welfare? Then fund their education and nutrition so they can get off it. Want black women to have fewer children? Then make affordable family planning services readily available to them. The very things identified as evidence of a war on women are the things that can help black women take control of their lives.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Want more black women off welfare? Then fund their education and nutrition so they can get off it. Want black women to have fewer children? Then make affordable family planning services readily available to them. The very things identified as evidence of a war on women are the things that can help black women take control of their lives.>> ^^ THIS!!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Want more black women off welfare? Then fund their education and nutrition so they can get off it. Want black women to have fewer children? Then make affordable family planning services readily available to them. The very things identified as evidence of a war on women are the things that can help black women take control of their lives." So the solution to welfare is more entitlements? And why are these entitlements all for women? <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2006/0819welfare_haskins.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.brookings.edu/artic...ins.aspx</a> "The secret of the success of the 1996 welfare law was that public policy employed both sticks and carrots to encourage, cajole, or force young mothers to make the right choices. If mothers did not prepare for work, look for jobs, and actually accept jobs, the law required states to greatly reduce or even eliminate their cash welfare benefit. Meanwhile, even prior to 1996, Congress and a series of presidents of both parties had created an innovative system of benefits that supported low-income working families outside welfare, thereby encouraging them to take low-wage jobs, because the combination of low-income and government work-support benefits left the families economically better off than they had been on welfare. It was the combination of low-wage work and government work supports, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), food stamps, child care subsidies, and Medicaid health insurance, that helped so many mothers pull themselves and their children out of poverty. The key ingredients of overhauling welfare were the judicious combination of sticks and carrots. The public agenda for men includes sticks and, well, sticks. Men generally do not qualify for cash welfare, child care, or Medicaid, and they qualify for an EITC that is worth only a tenth as much as the mothers' EITC. The only major benefit for which they qualify is food stamps—to go along with continual pressure from child support and, for many, incarceration. Thus, the carrots are missing." Some war on women.
Originally Posted By barboy Wrong, Tom & Sinner. Condoms are cheap. So cheap they are freely given away in many spots. But yet HIV runs rampant in US black neighborhoods. It really is basic: condoms are birth control condoms are accessible and cheap women are allowed to procure condoms blacks in too many cases have not been using them.
