Thanks, US women, for making sure Romney did not get elected.

[Alceste]

I wish I could be as certain as you alceste but then I think I lost all that hope when prop. 8 in california defied the odds and got passed.(and it wasn't just that it happened but that it happened in one of the most liberal states out there) I can certainly say if romney gets elected it will make me very scared to be a woman in this country, though it's already quite scary when I look at what's going on, particularly with rape(forcible rape my ***!). My university has been having a display of painted shirts hanging from the ceiling of the student center all about "consent is sexy" and "real men don't hit" and other anti-rape anti-abuse messages, but what should be a source of comfort for me has just proved an uncomfortable reminder of what's going on and how much things have been backpedalling lately with women's rights. If the republican party regains control of congress and the white house, which will certainly lead to them controlling SCOTUS, I am truly terrified about what that will mean for myself and the rest of the women in this country.

I'll try to hope, but right now I'm really dreading tomorrow.

Try not to worry too much. The odds of a Romney win are really very small. Around 15% now and that's a worst case scenario. The forecasters I follow have a history of precise forecasts, like within single electoral seat, over several elections.

At any rate, it'll all be over tomorrow night!

 

[Riverwolf]

Try not to worry too much. The odds of a Romney win are really very small. Around 15% now and that's a worst case scenario. The forecasters I follow have a history of precise forecasts, like within single electoral seat, over several elections.

At any rate, it'll all be over tomorrow night!

Who are they, if I may ask?

 

[MoonWater]

Well, don't forget that Prop 8 also had a lot of monetary backing supporting it, more than was in favor of it, in addition to people against it not voting for it under the false mindset of "There's no way something this stupid could pass!"

I'm not seeing the same thing this time.

True

Still I've never been more nervous about an election. It's already becoming more dangerous to be a woman in the U.S.

 

[Alceste]

Who are they, if I may ask?

Princeton electoral consortium and the five thirty eight.

Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased - NYTimes.com
Princeton Election Consortium — A first draft of electoral history

 

[MoonWater]

Try not to worry too much. The odds of a Romney win are really very small. Around 15% now and that's a worst case scenario. The forecasters I follow have a history of precise forecasts, like within single electoral seat, over several elections.

At any rate, it'll all be over tomorrow night!

Thanks, I'll try.

 

[Riverwolf]

True

Still I've never been more nervous about an election. It's already becoming more dangerous to be a woman in the U.S.

I understand. America is becoming an ever more frightening place to be, for us all.

But I think we'll be okay, at least for another four years.

 

[Alceste]

True

Still I've never been more nervous about an election. It's already becoming more dangerous to be a woman in the U.S.

I know. But take comfort in the fact that most other women in the US seem to feel the same way you do, and they're not taking it lying down.

 

[Penumbra]

I'll count my chickens after they hatch, but either way, women are statistically awesome here!

 

[Harmonious]

True

Still I've never been more nervous about an election. It's already becoming more dangerous to be a woman in the U.S.

:sarcastic

I'm not worried.

 

[MoonWater]

I know. But take comfort in the fact that most other women in the US seem to feel the same way you do, and they're not taking it lying down.

I will thanks

 

[MoonWater]

:sarcastic

I'm not worried.

Care to elaborate

 

[Harmonious]

Care to elaborate

I'm sure that, if elected, Romney will do a fine job, and women are in no greater danger than we're in now.

Mitt Romney isn't interested in taking away anyone's rights. He just doesn't want the government to foot the bill for someone else's lack of planning.

When asked about how to solve the problem of inequality in the workplace, Mitt Romney went on about making sure that women had as many opportunities as men.

I'm not sure why you feel that women will be in danger if Mitt Romney gets elected (which I'm thoroughly hoping will happen).

 

[fantome profane]

Mitt Romney isn't interested in taking away anyone's rights. He just doesn't want the government to foot the bill for someone else's lack of planning.

Right, freedom of choice for the very wealthy women.

 

[Harmonious]

Right, freedom of choice for the very wealthy women.

You know... The idea is that, with the exception of rape, incest, and saving the life of a mother, any other situation should be thought of with consideration.

Condoms aren't 100% reliable, and no contraceptive option IS, except abstinence. If a woman chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, the government shouldn't have to pay for her right to say, "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have done that."

A little self-control should work wonders, and it isn't the government's responsibility to make sure a woman keeps her panties on, or to fix it if she voluntarily chooses not to and simply doesn't want to deal with the results.

 

[Alceste]

You know... The idea is that, with the exception of rape, incest, and saving the life of a mother, any other situation should be thought of with consideration.

Condoms aren't 100% reliable, and no contraceptive option IS, except abstinence. If a woman chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, the government shouldn't have to pay for her right to say, "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have done that."

A little self-control should work wonders, and it isn't the government's responsibility to make sure a woman keeps her panties on, or to fix it if she voluntarily chooses not to.

Somebody here has not read the Republican party platform on abortion.

 

[Riverwolf]

You know... The idea is that, with the exception of rape, incest, and saving the life of a mother, any other situation should be thought of with consideration.

Condoms aren't 100% reliable, and no contraceptive option IS, except abstinence. If a woman chooses to have sex and gets pregnant, the government shouldn't have to pay for her right to say, "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have done that."

A little self-control should work wonders, and it isn't the government's responsibility to make sure a woman keeps her panties on, or to fix it if she voluntarily chooses not to.

Actually, yes it is.

A government's first duties are to serve and protect its people: it's therefore not independent of said people, and, ideally, has no will of its own beyond the needs of said people. These include economic and medical needs.

Most people in the United States are middle class, or lower. Many women are not in an economic position to care for a child, and so take several measures against pregnancy. Abstinence can be very potentially psychologically damaging for many people, especially for those with strong sex-drives. What you're proposing is a pure lose-lose situation for such women, which should never happen.

That's where the government, our servant and protector, steps in when it needs to. In this case, it's protecting women from unfair punishment (for lack of a better word) simply for following an instinct that is as basic as hunger and thirst that might result in a situation that is only bad because of our current socio-politico-economic structure.

 

[Harmonious]

Somebody here has not read the Republican party platform on abortion.

Somebody doesn't know what my stance is, and the oft repeated stance on abortion Mitt Romney has.

 

[Harmonious]

Actually, yes it is.

A government's first duties are to serve and protect its people: it's therefore not independent of said people, and, ideally, has no will of its own beyond the needs of said people. These include economic and medical needs.

Most people in the United States are middle class, or lower. Many women are not in an economic position to care for a child, and so take several measures against pregnancy. Abstinence can be very potentially psychologically damaging for many people, especially for those with strong sex-drives.

I call malarky.

People who choose to put tab A into slot B know that they are in a position to create children.

It's been over 11 years since I've been divorced, and I've managed to abstain since before my divorce was final.

Sex drives are healthy. Sex drives can also be curbed.

What you're proposing is a pure lose-lose situation for such women, which should never happen.

They also know better. Honestly.

That's where the government, our servant and protector, steps in when it needs to. In this case, it's protecting women from unfair punishment (for lack of a better word) simply for following an instinct that is as basic as hunger and thirst that might result in a situation that is only bad because of our current socio-politico-economic structure.

I don't appreciate your comparison of women, particularly poor women, to animals that can't rein in basic instincts.

 

[Sunstone]

It amazes me that someone would begrudge someone else sexual pleasure on the grounds that sexual pleasure should not -- or ought not -- be that important to them. That might be good enough for some people, but what right have those people to decide for everyone else what priority to place on sex in their lives?

 

[Riverwolf]

I call malarky.

People who choose to put tab A into slot B know that they are in a position to create children.

It's been over 11 years since I've been divorced, and I've managed to abstain since before my divorce was final.

Sex drives are healthy. Sex drives can also be curbed.

And not all sex drives are created equal. You cannot use yourself as a behavioral model for everyone else.

Besides, how old are you?

They also know better. Honestly.

Then why do they put themselves into bad positions if they "know"?

I don't appreciate your comparison of women, particularly poor women, to animals that can't rein in basic instincts.

I didn't. ALL HUMANS, you me, the rich, the poor, men, women, EVERYONE are animals. And ALL of us follow our instincts. But we have different levels of intensity for various instincts: some eat more than others, some have a greater drive for self-preservation.