[thechat] [ugh]

[aardvark]

> From: Judah McAuley <judah at wiredotter.com>
>
> Actually, I think that it is overt suppression of women.  The
> Republicans have been pushing "marriage incentives" for quite some
> time.

here's where it comes down to perspective... the government has
no policies officially suppressing women... there are cases where
laws, however, certainly don't help women... 'marriage incentives'
are another misguided attempt at responding to public and social
issues with our society... that they manifest as tax breaks is just
fine with me...

>     They claim that two parent households are better than single
>     parent
> households even when one of the partners isn't much of a parent.  You

actually, that's not exclusive to the republicans, and that's not
exclusively what they claim...

> could argue that this stance is gender neutral, that they would push
> marriage on single fathers just as hard as on single mothers, but that
> is pretty disengenious in my opinion.  This is a rehash of the sexual
> revolution going back to Margaret Sanger.  Women are responsible for
> reproductive matters because they have the most physically invested in
> it.  But we don't want to give them power over reproductive matters
> because then they would have too much power.  So what do we call it
> when we make someone responsible for something without giving them the
> power to make any decisions?  I'd call that a raw deal and suppression
> to boot.

erm, you've now moved over to reproductive rights... again, not
government, but societal... law moves to reflect the society, and
since the society is still working through issues like abortion,
contraception, all the while clinging to different religious
restrictions, government itself reflects the people...

IOW, the constitution itself doesn't offer suppression... society,
pressuring its politicians, causes laws to be made, that then have
to be upheld and enforced, and that's where we see the unfortunate
effects of the social welfare system, and many other well-meaning
but inherently flawed programs...

every time a government moves to protect one, it exposes another...

> These work requirements/marriage incentives/abstinence programs are
> the same thing.  We want these women to be good mothers supporting
> their children, giving them lots of quality time. But we penalize them
> for working less than 30 hours a week and we penalize them for going
> to school.  The only option we give them to be a "good mother" is to
> get married.  We tell them that if you want to meet social ideals and
> get ahead in life, you have to do it by getting married.  You are
> responsible for all the social burden of motherhood, but we are taking
> away all your socially acceptable options to try and achieve your
> goals.

i think your use of the word 'we' is more appropriate than the use of
the word 'government'...

our government does lots of shitty things, but those ills are caused
by its citizens, both the root causes, and the final effects...

>   It's worded in gender-neutral language, but its pretty overt
> suppresion in my opinion.  You just aren't going to see the same
> standards applied to men.

no, but there are different standards applied to men... like i said,
when government steps in to protect some, others are exposed...
i've lost jobs to less qualified people because i'm a white male...
yes, it provided opportunity, but it cost me opportunity...  that's a
seldom-discussed and more insidious form of suppression...

> Classism is a bigger problem than gender or ethnic prejudice in my
> opinion, but I don't feel that our government has become gender
> neutral by any stretch of the imagination.

classism is *well* outside this discussion, IMO...

> Too darn hot tonight.  Get's my class struggle rants going.  Must
> finish beer and roll around in sweaty bed under the fan now.

ok, that's um, creepy...

--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg
ISBN: 1904151035