Skepchick Quickies 1.25

Skepchick Quickies 1.25
Amanda is a science grad student in Boston whose favorite pastimes are having friendly debates and running amok.

29 Comments

  1. Careful, please. The representative’s intent seems to have been to criminalize *coercing* a victim into obtaining an abortion, i.e. punish the perp. The wording of the bill was bad. Huffpo has updated, but is still including inflammatory language. We have enough divisiveness already in our country; let’s not hurt ourselves by adding to it with witchhunts.

    http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/012513xgrABORTION#.UQKPG-kht3g

    • Updated in the link, thank you.

      If Brown really is trying to deter sex offenders, of course I agree with that. But I don’t see how this law would have much of an effect. Prosecuting and convicting more sex offenders might work as a deterrent but that would take money and effort.

    • Careful, please. Some things NEED divisiveness, and this is one of them. Cathryn Brown is only saying that was her intent in response to considerable and very appropriate criticism for a bill which says absolutely nothing about criminalizing coercion, but as written is a forced birth bill designed to punish women further for the “crime” of being raped. Brown needs to be shouted down from all directions. She’s a horrible person who’s written a despicable bill. Pretending it’s about coercion just makes her a liar too.

      More fucking divisiveness is necessary when it comes to shit like this. Less fucking tone-trolling from the likes of you is necessary too.

      • ALL OF THIS. SO much.

      • Yeah, and then she changed the bill, making it completely obvious that she doesn’t want the bill to say that.

        Let’s not let reality get in the way now, shall we?

        • So I tracked down the actual legislation, and this is what is proposed to be added to the ‘evidence tampering’ law:
          “B. Tampering with evidence shall include a person
          committing criminal sexual penetration or incest procuring or
          facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to
          obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of the
          person’s act of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the
          intent to destroy evidence of the crime. In no circumstance
          shall the mother of the fetus be charged under this subsection.”

          Yep, that law that says women can’t be punished is clearly for the purpose of punishing women.

          Fact-check, people.

          • Good. It was modified. Which only shows it is so important to shout from the rafters. This woman is a forced birther from way back. Shaming her into making shit legislation slightly less shitty is the least we should do.

          • Yeah, because it’s completely impossible that this is what she intended the bill to say in the first place. And the bill in its current form is still shitty.

    • ED S,

      Isn’t coercing against her will into having an abortion, already illegal? I assumed it was.

      • Are you replying to yourself? I am confused.

        • !!! IE 8 browser.

        • Marilove,

          No I was replying to ED S, but I don’t think it posted the comment as a reply to him for some reason.

          • I was trying to ask koberulz for his comment at January 25, 2013, 1:22 pm

            This whole new commenting system is going to take some getting used to…

          • Marilove,

            That’s two of us, than. I’m still trying to get used to it. At least the “reply” button is a bit more noticeable now.

  2. It’s good, IMO anyway, to see more positions open to women in the military. And I have heard for some time of the previous manners in which they were in combat.

    And I’ve already heard opposition. A coworker of mine say the military is going to shit because of the opening of positions in the military.
    I just ignored his comment.
    I’ve seen women work just fine in the military during my time in the service.
    Just waiting to see what my conservative relatives have to say on the topic.

    Along similar lines, I’ve read of the possiblity of making changes to the draft, whether or not it will apply only to men or if both will be included.
    It reminded me of a discussion some years ago on a forum in which a mother worried over the possibility of her daughters probably being subject to a draft.
    I did tell her that they weren’t effected, but it made me wonder about the double standard that seems to pop up regarding this.
    And with these changes from the Pentagon, I imagine such discussion will be seen quite often.
    I’m curious to see the assesment from the Skepchick community.

    • I’ve heard that argument a million times. My take is that there shouldn’t be mandatory selective service registration for *anyone*, men or women. It’s completely outdated.

  3. I liked that “what about the menz?” comment in the huffpo article. The guy was upset because this article was complaining on behalf of women when really the women’s clothing section in any store is way larger than the men’s section.
    Sigh.
    Yes. Your daughter is free to choose from a HUGE number of unhealthy, passive role models. Yay for Disney Princesses!

    • How is Mulan a princess, but princess Eilonwy isn’t?

      • It seems silly to penalize a film for a bad opening that happened decades ago. It’s aged way better than most of their other films. Nobody in their target demographic was even alive then. It’s one of their better films.

        I think they just don’t like the idea of a princess rescuing a boy.

  4. These front page images are getting ridiculous. I had to scroll halfway down the page just to be able to access the article.

    • IE? IE8 Specifically? If so, that’s why:/

      • I use chrome and the images for the article are zoomed in badly, and i do have to scroll to get to th link.

        • I’ll have to check on my laptop when I get home this evening.

          • Even if I were using IE, the problem would still be site design, but I’m not. I’m using Firefox.

    • Yes, although the comment section is better, there are some bad formatting decisions in this design.
      1) All images should be sized the same in this particular chosen layout, otherwise things look really mismatched
      2) The complete left justification of everything is not great, there should be some whitespace at the edge.
      3) The text & images in the blog canvas are allowed to span too far when the browser is maximized, this creates readability issues
      4) Maybe the titles & article metadata should be on top of the issues, because right now you have to scroll to see what the image is about.
      5) Dynamic scaling has some issues

      Just constructive criticism. If you ever want volunteers to implement or validate any HTML/CSS/Javascript changes, I can help.

  5. I bought BabyBarge underwear marked to boys all the time. Well, I did until she got to the age where she didn’t want Spiderman on her underwear anymore.

    • Argh! That is supposed to read “marketed to boys” not “marked”. Sorry.

  6. The town where I grew up has a statue of our official town hero in front of the library. Deborah Sampson enlisted in the Continental Army in 1782 and served for a year and a half before being hospitalized for a fever and was discovered and honorably discharged. She had been wounded in a battle near Tarrytown, NY, but operated on herself to avoid discovery! After the war she married a farmer from Sharon, where she lived the rest of her life.

    • Wow, Buzz. That story was amazing. Thanks for sharing!

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply