Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women irony alert misogyny

The Obamacare decision proves that ladies shouldn’t be put in positions of power

So, as you probably already know, the three female Supreme Court Justices — the Justicesses? — all voted to uphold Obamacare; they made up the majority of the majority in this decision.

This gal isn’t too happy about it:

Hey lady, if you’re right, and ladies are too emotional and illogical to trust to make good decisions, why should we listen to anything you (a lady) have to say about this?

Pic found on Twitter in a tweet from MattyTalks. MattyTalks is hilarious. If you’re on Twitter, follow him.

Also, there are lots of people who are now, in the wake of the Supremes’ decision, threatening to move to Canada to escape the specter of socialized medicine. They’ll be in for a surprise, eh?

EDITED TO ADD: Longtime Man Boobz troll Anthony Zarat and a few friends have marched over to Feministe to argue that the Obamacare decision will “cost the lives of countless thousands of men and boys. This is our darkest hour.” It’s really pretty hilarious. Check it out. 

I know someone here did a point-by-point rebuttal of Mr. Zarat’s delusional “analysis” of the allegedly anti-male bias of the bill; it would be worth reposting over there if anyone remembers where that was.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

139 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
blitzgal
8 years ago

And while the rightwingers wail and screech over this travesty, most of them seem to have missed the likely reason that Roberts made this ruling — to gut the Commerce Clause and pave the way for more de-regulation and more corporate power. He did the same thing setting up Citizens United.

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
8 years ago

I might have something meaningful to say later, but first I need to stop laughing at the conservatives saying “hmph, i’m moving to Canada!”. 😀

Happy
Happy
8 years ago

@ Quackers

Like virtually everyone else on this blog, I’m all for men’s rights – part of the reason I’m against the “MRM” and their “MRAs” is that they do absolutely nothing to help men. Instead, it encourages delusion a la Antz and extreme bitterness a la The Spearhead.

They constantly claim victory then, a short while later, they are under attack from “feminist governance” and facing their “darkest hour”.

The men in my life face a lot of issues, as I’m sure the men in everyone’s life does. Patriarchal standards are hard to achieve against – I encourage them to reject the notions of “manliness” that damage men and women. I’ve just spent half an hour reading some of AVfM’s articles. Some of them have the beginings of a point – men should, in my opinion, reject marriage (as should women). But not for the delusional reasons AVfM say so. Men should refuse to engage in violence – but for for the delusional reasons that AVfM say so.

I think, for example, that Manboobz could maybe actually host a fundraiser for a charity or organization that actually helps men – put our money where our mouth is, so to speak.

Not sure how others feel. Just Detention are an amazing group, in my opinion.

Anyway Quackers, thanks for your thoughts, hope that helps?

Joanna
8 years ago

If you read the link that Zarat is complaining about he says that women come up more times than men, but flicking through I see most of the women’s health stuff is for pregnant women. Healthcare for pregnant women is misandry!

http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsabrecs.htm

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
8 years ago

‘Obamacare’ was practically written by the insurance companies in order to preserve their little fiefdom from the potential threat of single payer (you know, actual socialized medicine). I think the SCOTUS just figured out that they ought to support their true constituents (rich fuckers) instead of being a partisan GOP court, is all.

In the meantime this is better news for the little people than if the radical “screw over the poor, we’re rich, motherfuckers!’ wing of the Plutarchy had succeeded in repealing it, but I think one ought to keep perspective.

Hopefully in 50 years people won’t be talking about this as some sort of Left-wing victory the way the record has been completely muddied about FDR’s New Deal.

Joanna
8 years ago

Also, did you know that scientists only discovered a couple of years ago that the clitoris extends internally around the vagina? I mean…how did people miss that one for the entire history of gynecology? There isn’t enough medical research done on lady bits to this day. If it were the same for guys I’d say more healthcare for them too.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

creativewritingstudent: He thinks feminists are against VR relationships because that will cause men to see how needless women are; and that VR sex/relationships will destroy feminism.

Se we oppose it, lest we lose our place of power.

Naira
Naira
8 years ago

“Seriously. Let’s stop this shit. For good or for evil, the only one you can represent is yourself, not everyone with your same anatomy.”

AMEN.

Really, how pretentious do you have to be in order to think that you can speak for…what around 3.5 billion people? (and growing, of course).

The gender-essentialized bullshit annoys me on so many levels. Not only is it self-inflating, it also has an edge of cultural, national, and class centrism. It becomes MY culture, MY nation, and MY class are representative of everyone. And even if a person does have a wide range of contacts across the world, cultures, and socio-economic classes, that is still only a relatively small sampling of diversity in the range that all the people of the world cover (or even just women– for some value of “woman”)

blitzgal
8 years ago

Hopefully in 50 years people won’t be talking about this as some sort of Left-wing victory the way the record has been completely muddied about FDR’s New Deal.

Yeah, hopefully it will be seen as just the beginning of real health care reform in this country. One can hope.

blitzgal
8 years ago

‘Obamacare’ was practically written by the insurance companies in order to preserve their little fiefdom from the potential threat of single payer (you know, actual socialized medicine).

Sorry, meant to add that you’re exactly right. And in fact, the Affordable Care Act is basically the Heritage Foundation response to Hillary Clinton’s plan in the early 90’s. But now that Obama is attached and getting credit for it, the Republicans hate it.

Dani Alexis
Dani Alexis
8 years ago

Sorry, meant to add that you’re exactly right. And in fact, the Affordable Care Act is basically the Heritage Foundation response to Hillary Clinton’s plan in the early 90′s. But now that Obama is attached and getting credit for it, the Republicans hate it.

That’s the part that burns me second-most, right behind the gutting of the Medicaid provision that will probably result in a lot of poor people in certain states not getting coverage, even though the ACA entitles them to it. Having to advocate for a Heritage Foundation plot instead of pushing for single-payer makes my inner progressive very HULK SMASH!

I crunched the numbers yesterday for a friend who’s *just* above the 133% of poverty cutoff. Assuming she can find an insurance plan that costs less than 8% of her AGI, she’ll be out $70 – $80 per year out of pocket, and the feds will be kicking in $1,200 – $1,400 for her insurance. These numbers are astonishingly better than she could ever do on the private health insurance market now (she’s totally priced out now), but they also mean that insurance companies have found a way into her pocket and the pockets of a lot of other people like her, people with whom they do not currently bother. It’s a bonanza.

My cynical self thinks part of Roberts’s motivation here was his habit of never siding with the individual when there was a government to side with, and never siding with the government when there was a corporate interest to side with. The ACA is a biiiiig corporate interest. (My less-cynical self thinks Roberts’s call had a lot more to do with preserving the legitimacy of his Court.)

Amused
8 years ago

I just read that comment thread on Feministe, and … wow, just wow. Okay, you know what? You MRA’s are right. Every item that’s covered for women should be covered for men to the exact same degree. Let’s amend the law to say that men too shall be entitled to insurance coverage for pregnancy, birth and post-partum care. To paraphrase that famous scene from “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”, just because a male MRA is incapable of being pregnant and giving birth through his non-existent vagina, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge his right to do so if he so wishes, and to have it covered.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
8 years ago

I wondered for a moment if US law had caught up with trans issues.

Then I stopped fantasising about a perfect world.

Ruby Hypatia
Ruby Hypatia
8 years ago

Uh, congress passed it, and they’re mostly male. Obama signed it into law, and he’s a male. Plenty of women are against the law. Basically, this idiot is grasping at straws to backup his retarded opinion.

Women in power is dangerous? How about the likes of Hitler and Stalin? Do they prove men shouldn’t be in positions of power?

Anonymous
Anonymous
8 years ago

There is nothing wrong with assuming that a given health care bill will favor women over men- that’s been the case for at least 50 years now, ever since Title IX set precedent for female preference.

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

Basically, this idiot is grasping at straws to backup his retarded opinion.

Oh God please stop “helping.”

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Hey Rubes, thought you hated this bill because poor people should just fuck off and die, much like prisoners should be raped, according to you. Shut the fuck up.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
8 years ago

hellkell: Only the ones who deserve it, remember? Like the rapists! They deserve being raped! And thus people should be OK with rapists carryign on doing what they do in prison!

Move along, no logical flaws here!

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
8 years ago

LOL at AntZ’s visit to Feministe! I’ve already explained to him why cis men can’t get prenatal care. I’ve already explained that prenatal care is just as much for the health of babies as it is for pregnant people. I’ve also explained to him several times that prenatal care helps both male and female fetuses. Yet he continues to peddle his bullshit all over the Internet. I don’t know if it’s because he is obtuse, stubborn, or both.

katz
8 years ago

I wonder if Rubes is part of the “no healthcare in prisons” contingent.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

I cannot find it, but between your dual nyms and the many terms the ACA could be hiding under, idfk what to search for (date wise it has to be after 3/5 as that’s when Antz posed the avfm article).

Found it:
http://manboobz.com/2012/03/06/mens-rights-redditors-to-rebecca-watson-how-dare-you-say-we-hate-women-you-cunt/comment-page-2/#comment-131815

Discorda
Discorda
8 years ago

I’ll admit, I do get annoyed when people take infants to non kids movies and the baby cries, and no one takes the baby out, but yeah glaring at parents and kids is just rude and achieves nothing. Especially at stores where everyone has the right to be.

jumbofisch
jumbofisch
8 years ago

Gay is bad, so bad!! Because um poopholes!! POOPHOLES PEOPLE!!

jennydevildoll
8 years ago

“we are too emotional, we make irrational decisions…” We? Speak for yourself (“as a female”, snicker) but don’t presume to speak for me.

(BTW, the 1st Amendment says anyone has a right to say what they think, no matter what gender they’re pretending to be on the internet. It just doesn’t guarantee that they’ll know what they’re talking about, or that others won’t take the piss out of them, LOL)

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
8 years ago

Love rockets? Is that what they’re calling it nowadays?

It sounds like Anonymous needs to go back to 4chan.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
8 years ago

There is nothing wrong with assuming that a given health care bill will favor women over men- that’s been the case for at least 50 years now, ever since Title IX set precedent for female preference.

Wow. So you just get to assume whatever to win arguments, despite any evidence and facts?

Neat trick!

jumbofisch
jumbofisch
8 years ago
Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

@Amused

While I fully agree that the MRA objection to the bill is pure bullshit, I wouldn’t mind seeing gender neutral language for those issues because, unless I’m off base, that would be more inclusive of trans men and people outside the binary. I don’t know if the gendered language will prove an impedement to trans people, but either way it would be nice for them to be acknowledged.

Sharculese
8 years ago

only one justice has gotten ‘too emotional’ this week, and it wasn’t one of the women

Sharculese
8 years ago

although i’m impressed that thomas just threw out a one paragraph ‘i write separately to remind everyone i think we should go back to the articles of confederation’ without getting all huffy and indignant like he’s prone to

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Ruby —

“Uh, congress passed it, and they’re mostly male. Obama signed it into law, and he’s a male. Plenty of women are against the law. Basically, this idiot is grasping at straws to backup his retarded opinion.”

What happened to “Since Obamacare would also ration healthcare, then you guys also want people to just go die.”

Re: “retarded” — go learn something.

Anonymous —

“There is nothing wrong with assuming that a given health care bill will favor women over men- that’s been the case for at least 50 years now, ever since Title IX set precedent for female preference.”

How is requiring woman’s teams if they’re wanted “female preference”? Little story from my HS — we had a hockey team for decades, all boys, while I was there a couple of girls tried out and decided they couldn’t tolerate the hazing, so they formed a girls field hockey team — turns out there were girls a plenty who wanted to play but not face the hazing of the boys team. The boys team didn’t even get in trouble for the hazing, seems pantsing people is acceptable — they certainly weren’t required to cease existing or something. That’s just a hilariously wrong interpretation of Title IX.

And since I’m sure the “couldn’t take being pantsed” is going to result in the MRM shouting “whimp!”, let me ask how you guys would feel about having 20~ girls surround you and and take your pants while pointing and laughing…probably not enjoy it much eh? And when you could expect that at least one per practice you’d stop going too huh?

Sharculese
8 years ago

What happened to “Since Obamacare would also ration healthcare, then you guys also want people to just go die.”

the fact that ruby doesnt fall for a particular mra shibboleth doesnt immunize her against falling for other right-wing shibboleths. you have to remember that she is not very smart.

Sharculese
8 years ago

but y’know, just because she parrots dumb wingnut talking points, doesn’t mean you can call her a wingnut. that’s strawmanning.

katz
8 years ago

The generous interpretation would be that she has changed her opinion in the past few months.

Unfortunately the prison rape opinion can’t be addressed that way.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
8 years ago

Sharculese: But it’s a bit of a U-turn, yes?

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“Unfortunately the prison rape opinion can’t be addressed that way.”

Yeah so Ruby, thoughts on health care for prisoners? Or is making them suffer what they get for being arrested?

And any thoughts on the budgeting of health care for the consequences of prison rape versus for the prevention of prison rape? Because prevention almost always costs less (in everything, including health care and this is why there’s so much in the ACA about pre-natal care, costs less to have healthy babies than to treat sick babies)

Sharculese
8 years ago

how is that a u-turn? she says the law was passed by a majority male institution and signed by a male president. she’s not saying anything about the quality of the law. all she did was accurately observe that the law was supported by some men and opposed by other women.

of course, this statement is incredibly surface and trite, and ads nothing to the conversation, but isn’t that always the case with ruby’s daily harumph?

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
8 years ago

How is requiring woman’s teams if they’re wanted “female preference”?

Title IX also makes public schools allow pregnant students to continue classes instead of forcing them to either drop out or attend alternative schools. There are more pregnant girls than pregnant trans boys and non binary people, so maybe he considers that female preference?

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
8 years ago

sharculese: Ah, apparently I’m imagining some things she didn’t say.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
8 years ago

thebionicmommy: I somehow doubt many of the MRA crowd would even consider the existence of transmen in this sort of thing.

Sharculese
8 years ago

that’s been the case for at least 50 years now, ever since Title IX set precedent for female preference.

okay, i can tell you don’t know what you’re talking about because title ix isn’t fifty years old, but it doesn’t establish ‘female preference.’ quite the opposite, it says no student shall be denied access to educational opportunities on the basis of sex. now, in reality, it turns out this happens to girls a lot more than boys, but it does happen to boys, and when it does, title ix should and does protect them.

Sharculese
8 years ago

There are more pregnant girls than pregnant trans boys and non binary people, so maybe he considers that female preference?

isnt this essentially antsy’s gripe about the ppaca

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“isnt this essentially antsy’s gripe about the ppaca”

Combined with a legitimate complaint about STD testing and prevention in (cis) men, yes. But it isn’t like it’s feminism’s fault that STD testing is easier in vaginas than penises…and I’ve never</em seen a feminist saying that the HPV vaccine shouldn't be tested and approved for boys too. (Oh and lookie here the CDC does recommend it for boys, thus the ACA “covers” it!)

So yeah, that leaves pregnancy and testing for a couple of STDs, but that’s not some anti-male thing, it’s an anti-not-proven-effective thing. He should be lobbying for better STD screening in (cis) men (and other penis-havers), not complaining about feminism. (Does he really think hetero women wouldn’t want their partners to be testable? I mean damned that’s dumb)

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Poopy, I broke my close tag >.<

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

@Happy

Yes it does, thanks. Sorry, I didn’t mean to go off on you like that, I guess I’m just frustrated with all the back and forth online and when MRAs actually make a good point about something but then vomit all over it with misogyny.

I’m also not a fan of marriage but respect people who do get married.

Oh, and one bit of good news I forgot to post, 1in6 and RAINN have teamed up to provide a 24/7 hotline for male sexual abuse survivors. http://rainn.org/1in6-rainn-join-forces

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

The STD issue is semi-legitimate. Men are much more likely to be aware of an infection. It’s also true that men don’t have the same rates of regular appointments, which makes managing the scheduling of the testing a bit trickier.

But the ACA is a right-wing con job that they got passed under a democrat, and so they hate; it’s having their cake and eating it.

Nice work, if you can get it.

ragefromthebasement
8 years ago

Juvenile MRAnonymous wrote:

“You don’t understand. Little Ms. David here is just jealous because men will rather use a Fleshlight than give Little Ms. David’s hungry poophole and mouthpussy the gift of their manly, throbbing love rockets. Awwwww. Men are such pigs. Men are so shallow they can’t understand Little Ms. David needs a Real Man™. Where have all the good men gone?”

I was going to regender this comment, changing David to MRAs, but it started to sound too dirty and I got embarrassed. 🙂

nwoslave
8 years ago

@Argenti Aertheri
“How is requiring woman’s teams if they’re wanted “female preference”?”

For real equality in sports where merit is the only deciding factor there should only be one team for each sport. Everyone would have equal opportunity to compete to make the cut. Title IX has cut massive amounts of sports for men. This is an undeniable fact. Title IX punishes men by denying them the opportunity to even compete in sports that were once available to them. This is also a fact.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

@thebionicmommy

” I don’t know if it’s because he is obtuse, stubborn, or both.”

I think it’s option d. – lying. It’s not not he hasn’t admitted that he lies when he feels like it will further his cause.