HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » On tit-for-tat legislatio...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:12 PM

On tit-for-tat legislation

As more and more legislators propose laws for transvaginal ultrasounds and other laws designed to attack a woman's right to the integrity of her own body, other legislators have proposed laws to force men who wish to use medication to offset the symptoms of EDS to also undergo invasive procedures which deny them the right to the integrity of their own bodies. Similarly, as more and more legislators propose bills to force welfare recipients to undergo drug testing, other legislators have proposed laws to force legislators to undergo drug testing. In no such cases do the people proposing such legislation expect or even desire the legislation to pass. Self-admittedly, they are "just trying to make a point."

While the impulse to this sort of tit-for-tat legislation is fully understandable, one might wonder if it is wise.

Consider these points: the right-wing maniacs who are proposing the invasive, strong-arm laws to violate the integrity of women, welfare recipients, or anyone else, are not likely to be moved, or amused, by such counter-proposals. Nor are the many who are opposed to all such laws likely to be influenced by the retaliatory proposals, as they are merely a manner of preaching to the choir. Who then, is left to be influenced by such back-and-forth? Only persons who are genuinely uncertain about the appropriateness of such kinds of laws.

I wonder if these people, let's call them "undecided," are likely to be persuaded by such tit-for-tat proposals that the level of discourse has been raised? Or are they more likely to think that all legislators are a pack of idiots, who will waste valuable time and tax resources arguing over silly bills that have no chance of passing while ignoring and delaying legislation that might have some value?

Consider that it has been claimed that the Republicans have overtly attempted to lower the public's opinion of our legislative assemblies because to do so will promote an attitude of "a plague on both your houses," which both promotes apathy -- since all are criminals and fools, why vote -- and also promotes an instinct to throw all the rascals out and put in new. One might ask if tit-for-tat legislation, however understandable, doesn't play into such tactics, and suggest that it might be wiser to eschew it than embrace it.

-- Mal

12 replies, 1929 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply On tit-for-tat legislation (Original post)
malthaussen Mar 2012 OP
seabeyond Mar 2012 #1
malthaussen Mar 2012 #4
seabeyond Mar 2012 #6
malthaussen Mar 2012 #7
seabeyond Mar 2012 #9
malthaussen Mar 2012 #10
seabeyond Mar 2012 #11
malthaussen Mar 2012 #12
GopperStopper2680 Mar 2012 #2
Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #8
GopperStopper2680 Mar 2012 #3
cthulu2016 Mar 2012 #5

Response to malthaussen (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:16 PM

1. it makes people think, ask, become aware. it is a good move. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:28 PM

4. You think so?

That's akin to the "at least they're exposed to the subject" argument. The problem with that, as I see it, is if the subject is represented in a frivolous or irrational light, it may provoke discussion -- but not productive discussion.

It might be argued that such tit-for-tat activity creates awareness of the problem because, say, men might not notice the significance of some of the laws we're passing to oppress women, but would notice laws proposed to oppress themselves, and could by that means be brought to take attention of what is being handed to women. That argument would be based on a rather low evaluation of the perceptiveness of men, but hey, I'm a guy, I don't see a problem there. But the question remains whether the gain there would be offset by the loss of people who might throw up their hands in frustration and say, "You are all just a pack of cards!"

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:38 PM

6. i disagree. i think it does a lot of things.

i think it calls attention to the focus on women sexuality. i think it makes people who would ignore the womens issue sit up and take note. i think it makes women across the nation to feel damn good for male sexuality to be challenged. i think it does the party good that they are being aggressive as opposed to passive we see so much in democratic party. i think it is all around good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:50 PM

7. Well, now, the empowerment issue is one I had not considered.

Obvious blind spot, there. By that argument, similar counter-legislation in re drug-testing of welfare recipients would be seen as empowering the welfare recipients? And you would contend that this empowerment is of greater value than the likely loss of respect for legislators for stooping to such methods?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 05:06 PM

9. yes. i feel exactly the same with the testing issue. and no, i dont think it devalues respect of

legislator. i think the opposite.

i think people on the opposing side, or people that dont want a tit for tat on the womens issue use that as an excuse. i dont think that is how it comes off. i dont think that is how people feel

i think they feel righteous having someone stand up and speak out for them. and that is exactly what is being done.

why legislate my body and not mans
why make me do drug testing and not the rich

i think it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 05:24 PM

10. Of course, you don't need to be converted

... since you represent a member of the "choir" I spoke of in the OP.

I thank you for the insight. It is likely that my own feeling that tit-for-tat proposals lower the discourse stems in some part from the fact that I am not one of the oppressed, and hence do not require (nor receive) any sense of empowerment from them. In turn, I would suggest that not all who doubt the utility of such proposals do so as a cloak to hide their misogyny.

It might have made for an interesting poll question, if there was such a function in DU3. Unfortunately, there has not yet been enough discussion in this thread to get any sense of the diversity of opinion.

-- Mal



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 05:28 PM

11. true that. i do miss the polls....

my husband and my two sons and i have been following these issues and discussed them at dinner. when it came to discussing the tit for tat, all three were in favor and none of them brought up the argument of frivolous.

the few women i have had discussions with were in favor.

i live in a very red area and know only repugs. i will start having discussions with people i know to see how they feel. i am curious.

i think more are just going to be unaware of what is happening with these laws, because everyone i have discussed it with i have had to inform them what is happening with women across the nation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 05:37 PM

12. Well, now, that's discouraging...

...the bit about people not being aware of what is happening, that is. If that is the case, then it adds weight to your original point about creating awareness by whatever means possible.

Why, however, the original legislation should fly under the radar, but the response garner publicity, is problematical.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

2. That law would be an attack on the Right..

 

because a lot of rich fuckbags can't get a hard on unless they feel powerful and wealthy. If they had a bad day at the stock market they can't get it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GopperStopper2680 (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:55 PM

8. Three lefts do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:26 PM

3. Seriously though..

 

All jokes aside this is a good article and a lot of thought was put into it. Thanks for sharing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Original post)

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 04:28 PM

5. Rec'd. Two wrongs do not make a right

It is preaching to the choir political theatre that erodes the seriousness of what these anti-woman laws really represent

IMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread