Log in

No account? Create an account

The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
you and your audience; livestock comparisons may be questionable
children of dune - leto 1
I will be talking about work when I have words that aren't exclusively used in a famous George Carlin routine; having said that, and with the understanding that I do not approve of shoddy programming, I have to admit that there is nothing quite like writing up one line defects because they are so painfully obvious I can literally say "See subject line for details". I was told that is condescending, so yeah, I'm back on condescending watch by sympathetic coworkers so I do not accidentally tell a developer that as a child, I collected eggs from the henhouse (no, I really did, we had a short affair with chickens that ended in coyotes) with a higher level of sentience.

The thing is, you have to know your audience when you make sassy remarks.

Example: early in Child's development, I decided that the only way I would be able to deal with asking teh hard questions (are you sexually active? Did you build a bomb in teh bathroom? What the fuck is with all those carefully filled holes in teh backyard? Why for the love of God do you have cream of tartar in your bedroom?) by effectively reversing lifelong conditioning to filter. The growing pains of doing this did lead to our first sex talk with Child worriedly wondering about the eggs in the refrigerator and nesting (no, really, I wrote about it here; I made a lot of LJ parents feel really competent), but since then, my social conditioning has effectively been compromise, which is how I end up with a condescending-checker when I send certain emails to certain people or file certain types of defects. Once you have forced a meaningful talk on your child explaining the ways and means of condom use, offering demonstrations on various vegetables, and forever codewording raincoat so he never, ever feels entirely comfortable when weather is a conversational topic, pretty much everyone is fair game.

Which again, why I have coworkers check my email in case I am truthful about my feelings in metaphors not entirely suited to conversation or possibly, anatomy.

More people need to try this.

In general, it is far more likely that you can get your frankly medically dangerous, not to mention fucking ridiculous bill on requiring women to carry a stillborn child after twenty weeks because it's natural to be listened to if you don't phrase your concerns at any time by comparing it to the time you helped cows and pigs give birth.
“Life gives us many experiences…I’ve had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive. Delivering pigs, dead or alive. It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it.”

This is equivalent to the Republican candidate of a few years ago who expressed his own wild and woolly days actually getting down with that which owns wool and baahhhs. As apparently, he was of the opinion this was something men do when they are young, carefree, and that ewe was gagging for it (metaphorically speaking).

(Note: no, really.)

My point is, know your audience does not, in general, possess four legs and give birth in straw in a barn like structure; they will not feel this is the best method of achieving your goal of a.) literally killing women due to medical neglect, b.) promoting anti-abortion, but it may achieve c.) reminding me we have enough bacon for a sandwich because I'm starving. Which yeah, that hit the spot.

The War on Women is being fought across the country by people who, quite literally, need the equivalent of a condescending-checker. Do not tell them that. I see no reason to refuse them weapons with which they so brutally shoot themselves; admittedly, it's the equivalent of watching a SAW marathon being carried out in the public forum (messy!), but think of all the comedians whose careers are being made by this, the comedy club revenues, the expansion of the economy, and any hope this particular spate of legislation will last.

The free market in action. We are living the dream.

Posted at Dreamwidth: http://seperis.dreamwidth.org/931603.html. | You can reply here or there. | comment count unavailable comments

  • 1
These people also seem to have forgotten that there are these things called cameras and this thing called YouTube and allllll of this can come back to haunt them when they would like to be re-elected. *sigh*

It's also bullshit. I've worked on many farms, and stillborn calves, horses, and even goats and sheep are removed from the animal as soon as possible, either by induction or surgery. The alternative is losing the mother. ANYTHING other than a close monitor on your pregnant livestock, and quick action if something goes wrong, is not only inhumane, it's TERRIBLE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY.

So not only is this dude an idiot and an ass, he's also a shitty farmer. Winning!

So basically this guy finds women to be less valuable than livestock. I'm not actually surprised. (I'm getting A Modest Proposal flashbacks, to Swift's premise that women would be better treated if they were broodmares whose offspring had actual monetary value instead of adding mere mouths to feed to an already-crowded household.)

He actually seems to find them BOTH valueless, from what I can tell, since he is apparently saying that women, like his livestock, should carry stillborn fetuses until they "naturally" give birth. Which is terrible for the animals, and regularly results in unneccessary death of the dam. Holy shit, what an idiot.

Edited at 2012-03-21 04:01 pm (UTC)

Also completely unsurprised that he's someone who helped out on a farm as a kid or whatever and thinks that makes him an expert in animal husbandry. Since he's so willing to opinionate on female reproductive matters and legislate to support his ill-informed ideas.

Disclaimer: I am firmly anti-abortion. Our bodies are ours, and no one should be allowed to tell us what to do with them.

That being said, what's very interesting about this bill, from a purely legal POV, is the grey zones it has. Because, it does in fact not say that all abortions of a stillborn fetus are considered illegal or even an abortion by definition.
In fact, it says:
(1) "Abortion" means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant. The term "abortion" shall not include the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device employed solely to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous abortion."

The real question here, to me, is: What the hell happens to the fetus that didn't die as a result of a spontaneous abortion? (And, really, if it's a spontaneous abortion, which generally happens between the 20th and 22nd week of a pregnancy, isn't the fetus already, well, aborted, and the entire argument becomes void, thus bringing us back to making the abortion of a dead fetus illegal after all?

I guess us womenfolk should be glad this section here was added to the bill:
"(c)(1) No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if the probable gestational age of the unborn child has been determined in accordance with Code Section 31-9B-2 to be 20 weeks or more unless in reasonable medical judgment the abortion is necessary to:
(A) Avert the death of the pregnant woman or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No such condition shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the pregnant woman or that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function; or
(B) Preserve the life of an unborn child."

The bolded bit - seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

I was thinking about this earlier when somebody forwarded me a link saying that in Arizona, they're trying to (or maybe already have, I forget atm) get a bill passed saying that unless it is MEDICALLY NECESSARY, your insurance cannot cover your birth control pills, IUD, etc.

If that's true, then WTF? No wonder womens' health is going to hell in a fucking handbasket. Blurgh.

Whoa, those anti-abortion people are merciless, aren't they?

"Do not abort!!"
"The fetus is dead."
"DO NOT ABORT!!1!11"
"The mother will die."
"Don't care; abortion is wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!11!"

The thing I find most fascinating is how they lose all interest in the baby after it's born and will, in fact, bitch about welfare mothers. I'm terrified for my niece's future.

Um, late to the party. Sorry. Have some homemade Irish Creme? ::offers::

  • 1