This is out of control

What the actual fuck?!

2 Likes

Welcome to the Middle Ages.

3 Likes

Next thing you know, women will want to be able to drive, have their own bank accounts, and vote!

2 Likes

6 Likes

If women would just stay barefoot and naked in the kitchen and bedroom, those laws wouldn’t be necessary. Duh!.. (hauling ass toward nearest exit before being attacked by angry mob)…

4 Likes

You’ll be fine. You just have to find your audience. I recommend the religious community. They often seem to embrace misogyny.

2 Likes

They’re making it harder for people to get divorced in Missouri. A lot of married couples in these situations end up living apart. I’ve met women who were married but they were estranged from their husband and lived with their boyfriend. So this state law is bullshit and doesn’t work. It just encourages people not to get married.

2 Likes

Worse than that, I think this particular situation encourages spousal abuse and promotes a mind-set that women are merely tanks for procreation.

2 Likes

This is sad! I am very familiar and way to close to this issue. I found this story on the same Missouri law.

Why Missouri currently doesn’t allow divorce during pregnancy | AP News

These are some out takes:

“The Missouri law on divorce does not specifically bar finalizing divorces for pregnant women, but “whether the wife is pregnant” is one of the eight pieces of information — along with things like where the parties live and when they separated — that’s required when someone files for divorce.”

"Nevada Smith, a St. Charles, Missouri, lawyer who handles divorces, said it makes sense that judges will not finalize divorces during a pregnancy because a child would impact the custody and child support terms of a divorce. And divorces usually take months, even in the rare ones without contested issues.

“You kind of need to know if you have two children or if you have three,” he said.

Or a child born with special needs could change the equation, too."

"“People have complained that it’s so outlandish that we could force someone to stay married to the batterer,” said Hayes, who said that in 25 years of divorce law, she can think of just four cases she handled that involved pregnancy. “It’s not intended to be punitive to her but to account for the child’s needs.”

She said the first step in dealing with an abusive relationship is to seek a protective order, not divorce."

Both articles state facts. Both articles present a different perspective.

The old saying, “You are what you eat!” can apply to what one reads.

1 Like

That doesn’t make any fucking sense. It’s none of the state’s business.

1 Like

LOL - Marriage is a “State Institution.” You’re not married if you don’t have a license from the state. If you think you are married, due to some ‘common law’ (state law) you have to go to a (state court) to prove it. Marriage is the state. The real problem is that the state should not be acting without the consent of the people. Now here is the real problem. How fucked in the head is the population of Mo. to allow such a law to be placed on the books? Where are the protests?

5 Likes

Well, I suppose one could consider two attorneys to be the spokespeople for folks on the receiving end of this situation. Because, gosh, the attorney in Texas has run into it only four times.
I won’t consider them appropriate spokespeople, but on you go, eh?

1 Like

But running from angry mobs is about the only way for me to get exercise lately. Not wanting to get stomped into a mud puddle is fantastic incentive to maintain a cardio workout. :grin: Anyway, in trying to stay on topic with this thread, it is difficult to wrap my head around the sheer absurdity and audacity of such laws in this day and age. I’m old enough to remember quite well when women were treated as second-class citizens. I also remember when the shift started to change for the better. Took a little time, but women gradually advanced to pretty much “equal” levels of men in politics, workplace supervisor positions, and other vital areas. So, somebody, please tell me what the actual HELL has been going on lately that seems to be trying to dismantle those advances? I simply do not understand how that is being allowed, especially considering there MUST BE some amount of women on these “committees” that are presenting/passing those types of Middle Ages laws. I seriously don’t understand. (Well, okay, I DO understand, to a degree, how it’s happening. It just BOGGLES my mind, nonetheless.)

2 Likes

Ditto. A simple example: job, function, and role titles up until a few decades ago used to be gendered in my language, and they still are strongly gendered in e.g. German. Examples:

  • teacher: m. lærer, f. lærerinne, now: lærer; German m. Lehrer, f. Lehrerin
  • sales clerk: m. ekspeditør, f. ekspeditrise, now: ekspeditør; German m. Verkäufer, f. Verkäuferin
  • conductor (as in train conductor): m. konduktør, f. konduktrise, now: konduktør; don’t know the German word for it
  • police: m. politi/politimann, f. politikvinne, now: politi or politibetjent; German m. Polizist, f. Polizistin
  • doctor: lege (here we didn’t differentiate), but in German they have m. Arzt and f. Arztin

So from letting the gender of the person doing the job be an obligatory piece of information (whether it was relevant or not), it is now only being extra information in those cases where the gender is actually meaningful (in the context of e.g. handling teenage “girl issues” at a school, it makes sense to add gender information about a teacher in the form of “male/female teacher”, since female teachers most likely are more sensitive and knowledgeable about those issues than a male teacher). Other than that, the teacher’s gender is irrelevant. So from having two gendered forms of such job titles, we have in practice moved to only one, of which the grammatically masculine version is the default. The old feminine versions seem largely old fashioned and obsolete now.

On the surface this might seem trivial (in the sense of “why bother?”), but it does actually influence the way people think. From letting the gender be an almost obligatory piece of (irrelevant) information in the description of a job, function or role, the shift means that now the job and the job description is the important information, and you add the gender only if that is actually relevant for the context.

2 Likes

It has of course greatly improved, but political power and upper management positions are still largely in the hands of men. I doubt we’ll elect a woman president in my lifetime and women CEOs are very much in the minority (8 percent of the CEO’s of the S&P 500). Women’s rights are a shiny new thing and we’ve seen just how fragile they are. It appears to me that the erosion of women’s rights is almost always directly tied to religion and I find it terrifying and sickening.

7 Likes

4 Likes

This cartoon is just so fucking sad. 2024 we are fighting the same fight after 40 long years since we first got sexual discrimination on the books in Aus.

We have not got the same problem here yet but the churchy influence from the US is infecting some of our politicians.

2 Likes

Infecting your politicians like V.D.?

1 Like

Oh my, that just isn’t the case. Take a few minutes and review some of the info…here’s an org that collects and presents it.

1 Like

Better than no attorneys.

1 Like