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.
Love rockets? Is that what they’re calling it nowadays?
It sounds like Anonymous needs to go back to 4chan.
Wow. So you just get to assume whatever to win arguments, despite any evidence and facts?
Neat trick!
ahahahah but its the only kind of comment he knows david!!
:
http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/09/first-they-came-for-fleshlights.html?showComment=1285187701640#c3131142968042564792
@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.
only one justice has gotten ‘too emotional’ this week, and it wasn’t one of the women
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
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?
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.
but y’know, just because she parrots dumb wingnut talking points, doesn’t mean you can call her a wingnut. that’s strawmanning.
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.
Sharculese: But it’s a bit of a U-turn, yes?
“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)
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?
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?
sharculese: Ah, apparently I’m imagining some things she didn’t say.
thebionicmommy: I somehow doubt many of the MRA crowd would even consider the existence of transmen in this sort of thing.
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.
isnt this essentially antsy’s gripe about the ppaca
“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)
Poopy, I broke my close tag >.<
@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
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.
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. 🙂
@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.
@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.