I have long despised Victoria’s Secret on both a political and personal level. Politically, I hate them because they’ve used prison labor, they’ve used child labor, and historically they’ve been pretty darn crappy on the diversity front. On a personal level, I hate them for fucking up generations of women, myself included, with the wrong bra sizes because it was easier and cheaper for them to sell nothing but 34/36B and 34/36C bras, and thus being the cause of many tears, quadraboob and back/shoulder problems across the nation for decades. It hurts my very soul to have to side with them on any issue.
But in this case, they’re doing the right thing (if only to save their own asses, financially) and it’s making people at The Federalist upset, so that’s nice.
Kinda climate/misogyny crossover
(post removed, thanks Leaders!)
Ha, you could add to that:
GOP: “If we pass laws making it harder for kids to learn about sex ed in school, there will be less teenagers having sex.”*
*But if that worked, there would be no need to ban abortions, right?!? /s
I always wonder whether people who support criminalizing abortion actually think they will prevent abortions by doing so. I mean, I guess it encompasses a very broad spectrum of people from people who don’t even care and are just using it as a political wedge; to people who don’t care about reducing abortions but only about punishing people who get them; to people who just never stop to think about the consequences of anything and just think I-don’t-like-it-that-much and it-should-be-criminal are basically the same thing.
(Note I don’t include people heartfelt beliefs that abortion is wrong because I don’t think that has anything to do with wanting to have police interrogate women who’ve had miscarriages)
I think they are aware that it won’t… But it will criminalize it, meaning they can punish doctors who provide them and women who get them. I think that’s their real goal, to control women and punish those who don’t conform. They have given me no other indication that they want otherwise.
This is not really aimed at you, because I know you realize that the result is the same… but I think this conceptualization needs to die in a fire. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter if it’s a “heartfelt” belief or being used as a political wedge, because the effect is the same - which is that I’m a second class citizen at the end of the day. When we say that it’s just being used as a wedge/distraction issue, it very much allows people who aren’t directly effected by it (men, mostly) to ignore it and give ground on it, which is what we’ve seen over the years. It’s a “woman’s” issue, as if this can’t directly lead to men’s control over their bodies being violated, too.
You’ve caught me doing something I’m trying not to do anymore, which is use jargon terms when I could instead explain what I mean. The term “wedge issue” has become sanitized. What I should say is that some politicians use the issue to intentionally harm people and create strife because they believe it will net them personal power. They are using the issue of abortion to cleave the population into two groups such that those in their group contain a significantly higher percentage of the people willing to be violent in defense of authority.
I can get behind that interpretation. I agree. But it’s also primarily still about controlling women, I think, not just getting their side to commit acts of violence. Or at least it wasn’t until this more recently became a core part of the mainstream GQP strategy. They are not longer willing to condemn their violent fringes, but are all about inviting them into the center of the party… whether that’s anti-choice extremists or racists. In the past they had a tepid condemnation (with a wink that they agree with them in spirit) for the most violent extremists in their midst, while refusing to fully reject their extreme views about women, race, LGBQT+ people, etc. And now those extremists have been fully put in charge of the platform.
I do think people use it as you say in a santized way, to say that “people don’t really mean it, so it’s not a real issue we should address.” It’s pretty dismissive. And they’re still doing that on the Democratic side, despite the obvious erosion of rights for women across the country. They now have a case on the docket of SCOTUS that could over turn Roe. They are very close to getting that now.
When the fascists roll tanks into the center of the city and set up a command zone, you have to understand, they don’t really care about the center of the city, they care about the industrial zone to the north. Therefore we should not get distracted by trying to get them out of downtown. /s
Following this court makes me think they are not going to overturn Roe. They are going to narrowly argue some convoluted word salad that upholds Roe while simultaneously allowing Texas’ ban of abortions at 6 weeks. And then the pundit class (who don’t live in Texas) will say, “See, they didn’t overturn Roe, the left was over-reacting.”
Maybe I’m too paranoid, but I think it’s a strong possibility.
Then it’s still really overturning Roe, though.
Exactly. And people who think that women’s right to bodily autonomy can be traded for “real” issues like labor can continue ignoring the issue.
With a heaping side of gaslighting.
They can take away our rights AND make us feel crazy at the same time! I’m sure that’s a feature, not a bug.
They are trying to ban IUDs and I assume all birth control altogether.
Because, obviously, the best way to decrease abortions is to eliminate birth control. It’s almost like the abortion thing has nothing to do with what they are actually after, hmmm? Gotta control them wimmins, can’t let them think their bodies are their own or anything!
Fucking moronic…
Nonononono, condoms are male controlled, so they are ok. It’s those pills and things that make women think they can have sex for fun, and on their terms, that are evil. (/s)
(After your edit, this makes no sense at all. I’ll leave it though. Like abstract art. 
)
I amended my comment.
Hell if they are.
Some has-been bit actor living on residuals thinks he is owed the view of makeup and false eyelashes from any women in the service industry he comes in contact with.
And yes, of course, there are women responding to his FB tirades who fully support the misogyny. Meanwhile, other women who’ve been on the receiving end of his extreme version of YEECH are posting support to his current victim. Couldn’t sleep, so I ended up spending way too much time reading the responses:
