Bigger baby-steps towards "The Handmaids Tale"

[Loy]

Found this article pretty, um, interesting. Figured since nobody here's brought it up (or the implications inherent), figured I'd post a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

Discuss!!!!

[Sobeh]

Dude, TStone, I'm getting that put on a plaque.

[Loy]

So I should take the lack of responses as meaning the chicks on this board have no problems with being nothing more than cum-dumpsters/incubation receptacles rather than, you know, actual human beings?

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Loy

So I should take the lack of responses as meaning the chicks on this board have no problems with being nothing more than cum-dumpsters/incubation receptacles rather than, you know, actual human beings?

hahahahahaha...

* SLAP *

... ow ...

[Loy]

Not judging anybody yet. Just saying that here we are, willing to argue over some abstractions of ideas, and eyt when it comes down to something that affects the very definition of who is a human being in the United States, people are just keeping quiet. How very odd and/or cowardly, considering that a lot of people here on the board are Americans.

So again, I ask the question-So I should take the lack of responses as meaning the chicks on this board have no problems with being nothing more than cum-dumpsters/incubation receptacles rather than, you know, actual human beings?

[Sobeh]

This isn't saying women are only sperm receptacles Loy, it's a misguided attempt to maximize health and that means reproductive health should be looked at. Women just happen to have been on the receiving end of a male-dominated medical profession, men who are fascinated by 'the baby thing' - have been for millennia.

Men should heed this same advice, since we're shooting all kinds of jizz and lord knows which ones are gonna land on fertile fields. It wasn't expressly intimated in the article, but sperm quality does reflect nutrition as well as does the incubating motherness of a woman's womb.

Intelligent people take information and incorporate it - leaving it in isolation is for the masses, and I should hope that one of the common motivations amongst all of us here on the board is an attempt to move away from such herding. So, while we can be upset at an establishment that sees women as carriers of the babyhome, the lack of outrage is not for you to judge.

You've assumed outrage ought be the response, and that no outrage is a sign of acquiescence. This strongly resembles the same crime of pigeonholeing you claim to be upset at.

[WolfMoon]

What?

This should surprise people? Of course the men in charge think of making the women get healthy and do all the work instead of themselves!

If men start suggesting that men take some responsibility for the health of their future children, then they'll be hypocrits because they're too damned lazy to heed their own advice. Easier to make it the woman's job to oversee everyfuckingthing about the pregnancy and infant health.

So, if I've got this right, it is the woman's job to be healthy for breeding?

It it the woman's job to take care of the children she labors to bring forth into the world?

It is the woman's job to be attractive and find a mate to make said children with?

It is also the woman's job to pop back into shape and be attractive to her mate after pregnancy.

If these things dealing with pregnancy and babies are the jobs of women, why aren't all of the decisions ours?



Fuck these useless cumstains and their demeaning roles for women!


P.S. Loy, if I'd seen this post earlier I would have responded sooner. I haven't been on much lately, except in the General section.

[Loy]

Sobeh-a misguided attempt to maximise health? That's how one would describe Clinton's health care plan, not the universal disavowal of one groups humanity (which is what this guidline does). By telling women that their only importance is for breeding, don't you see that as diminishing their role in this society, in all of its spectrums? Does this mean that women who can't reproduce due to age and/or medical conditions are to be shut out of the health care system?

As far as men heeding the same advice....I'd agree with you, except you anbd I a grown up enough to know it won't happen. Not unless some statute is put in there, and I see the chances of that happening being about the same as David Bowie allowing himself to get corpulant (which, if you think about it, is "not at all"). I mean, can you imagine this group in power telling men "OK guys, no more drinking, smoking, or screwing around. You got two testes full of precious, precious sperm we don't want damaged"? Of course not (especially when one considers that whilst women have two ovaries that pop out eggs once a month, men shoot out a couple million sperm per load, so men's chances of doing major damage to some of their sperm count won't really diminish their ability to start the reproduction cycle....see, science CAN be used for both domination AND fun).

As far as the outrage thing....yes, I am outraged. I don't (and won't) hide that fact. However, the fact that the government is basically telling all women that they're not really individual human beings who are important to many, many aspects of this society, and that their only importance is being cum dumpsters/birthing tubes (I know the language is harsh. however, I won't try softening it up, when softening it up is tantamount to being dishonest about the implications of this statute)...I'm sorry, but for people not to be outraged by this form of dehumanization IS a form of acquiesence to the powers that be. What I find somewhat funny is how much we'll debate over little abstractions of ideological posits, yet when there's something that affects a large amount of the population, most people here just keep their mouths shut. Fucking hilarious, if you ask me. So again, I ask "So I should take the lack of responses as meaning the chicks on this board have no problems with being nothing more than cum-dumpsters/incubation receptacles rather than, you know, actual human beings?"

[WolfMoon]

Outrtage?

C'mon, babe. I'm more outraged when some shitwit calls me a 'breeder' and smirks because I have two beautiful children.

Women won't be 'forced' maintain optimal breeding conditions anymore than men will. The only women that I've known that paid any kind of attention to their reproductive health are the ones trying to concieve.

If women were co-erced or force-fed prenates, then I'd be outraged. Or if they tried to pass some kind of law that women were to obtain and keep 'optimal breeding conditon' then, you're damn skippy I'd be outraged and probably doing whiny protests like a hippy.

The simple truth (for me) is that I'm done with breeding and it doesn't bother me. I just wish they'd put more pressure on the other side for a while.


Oh, and Tom?

Fuck you, sweety.