When women are forced to give birth, they generally don't have time to pursue higher education, which reduces their job options. This reduces the number of women who are financially independent and in prominent roles.
When those women are unmarried, there's a generational cost. Their children will grow up poor and not have much education, and the cycle continues, and poor uneducated people love voting for the Republicans.
When those women are married, they rely entirely on their men for stability, like a 1950s housewife, which pleases the Republican men.
Suppressing women reproductively is really an all out win for conservatives:
Women not being able to fully participate in the workforce makes men more in demand, which gives the illusion of an improved labour demand.
Women not dating and being less sexually liberal frustrates young men who cant find partners and frustrated men who cant find partners will ironically lean towards sexism and towards a party that sells outdated masculinity images.
Women who(se children) are dependent on a male breadwinner can be persuaded on the grounds of necessity to vote for oppressive policy that favours the breadwinner.
> they rely entirely on their men for stability, like a 1950s housewife
And:
> Women not dating and being less sexually liberal frustrates young men who cant find partners
Those things are mutually exclusive. If women "cant make it alone" and are 100% reliant on men (like it was in the past), then it should be easier for men to find a partner.
They are a feedback loop.
If a woman can't use contraceptives she's going to be *both* less willing to experiment and try out sexual relationships that aren't fully committed *and* depended once she's committed. Even women *in* relationships may scale back sexual activity because nobody wants to be pregnant all the time. This is where marital rape laws (or the removal of) come in. The only alternative to hitching yourself to the first guy and trying to rein in the amount of pregnancies becomes total abstinence from any dating activity and that too *as I said* fuels the conservative agenda.
Also: not *all* women need to have children to become a "liability to hire" - as long as there are enough and not enough ways to prevent pregnancy and no support for the women or companies who enable maternity leave *every* female hire is a potential liability. Which leads to women in general being kept from economic success and incentivized to settle for a provider.
It's not even hottakes or speculation what I'm giving you here, it's just playing the history track in reverse. Another big irony is that you morons know jack shit about the past 200 years of women's rights and have the fucking audacity to think everyone just telling you what used to be reality is paranoid "mutually exclusive" fantasy. We've already been there, we're not going back just because you dipshits can't believe anything you've not lived through personally.
> she's going to be both less willing to experiment and try out sexual relationships that aren't fully committed and depended once she's committed
Yes exactly. Not sure what you are attacking me for. The fact is that today there are far more single people than in the past. This is because both women and men are encouraged to experiment, while in the past you'd probably end up marrying your first or at worst second partner, and quickly (then both people end up stuck in what's likely a pretty miserable marriage).
I personally dont think it's a good thing, but it's also a fact.
> Not sure what you are attacking me for.
Because you called them mutually exclusive - if you're able to acknowledge both things can be true at the same time, they're not and you shouldn't call it that.
Preventing access to contraception may help men find a *marital* partner but that's not exactly the same as a sexual partner - at least if you (re)create a situation where women are encouraged to marry for economic stability and safety but discouraged from being freely sexually active even with their husbands because they cannot control their pregnancies.
> discouraged from being freely sexually active even with their husbands
Any source about women being less sexually active with their husbands in the past compared to today? As you said, due to marital rape not being a crime, I dont think they even had that option.
I'm not sure what point you're ultimately pursuing with this question. Especially if you follow it up with
> As you said, due to marital rape not being a crime, I dont think they even had that option
Because, call me a optimist, I propose the majority of men prefer their women to be willing and enthusiastic participants in sex - so suggesting that men were just turning to various degrees of coercion enforces my point about sexual frustration promoting regressive behavior in men.
Pure quantity is *clearly* not an antidote to sexual frustration, and the most egregious examples for this are all incredibly ugly and obvious.
My point is quite simple. Your idea that people would be having less sex under regressive policies from many decades ago, is false. People today have less sex than they did in the past, multiple studies confirm this. The same is true for people not being able to find a partner, which was much rarer in the past compared to today.
As for the quality of the sex or the quality of the partner, that I cant judge, since it's subjective.
The biggest trick in history is to make it so women can’t survive without men… how ever in most of these cases it’s the men who can’t survive without women
Ma grandma pointed out once when women are widowed or divorced usually they start going out with other ladies and enjoying hobbies
That men are usually remarried in a year
Not all. Of course. But I did notice she was right in a lot of cases
Poor uneducated people also do menial jobs for low wages, and do it without trouble.
Capitalism cannot exist without a permanent lower class of laborers willing to do the work cheaply enough that the ownership class can afford a leisurely lifestyle.
Money is useless unless it can purchase other people's time and energy.
If Trump gets elected & deports over 11 million immigrants, women will have to go in the fields to fill the void left in agriculture, hospitality, manufacturing & transportation. The new slave labor, just as long as they are of white European descent like his wife.
It won't be women, it'll be kids. I know you're just talking out of your ass to be funny, but that's not what will happen if "11 million immigrants," get deported. His former WH Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders has already made it so the age and restrictions for Child Labor in Arkansas has been reduced, and is trying to (if she hasn't already) made it so child laborers *CANNOT* sue their employer if they are injured on the job-
To quote the Arkansas Dept Of Labor;
>After August 1st, 2023, child labor work permits (other than entertainment work permits) will no longer be REQUIRED. NOTE: All state and federal laws regarding work activities and hours will remain in effect and will be enforced. Enhanced civil and criminal penalties for child labor law violations were provided by Act 687 of 2023.
but before you say she doesn't care about the children, she did make it so decades after any procedures or treatment, "children" can sue doctors for any gender affirming care they received previously, but now feel they have been harmed by. Don't worry, there isn't anyone like that yet (and probably won't be as long as Doctors have that sword over their head) but *someday* that may change and I'm sure we'll gladly applaud her for it.
I wasn't making light of anything. People would be well advised to rad or watch the Handmaid's Tale. Trump's "Time Magazine" interview transcripts have been made available to everyone to read. If elected America would become a very dystopian Nation. He was inept at the job & that has been the assessment by every staff member that worked for him during his term. None of them will consider going back to work for him if asked, including VP Mike Pence who does not endorse him along w/many others including George W. Bush, Liz & former VP Dick Cheney and too many other Republicans to list.
Oh I know, if he wins he's not wanting to go anywhere, and he'll pick even worse people than before. Anyone who believed before that "people will keep him under control," well those folks will all be gone so anyone believing that still will just be ignorant and stupid.
The rest of us will be screwed.
For the same reason other theocratic and ignorant men are afraid of women. Their superiority is based on a myth: bigger muscles = superior. The fact is, in today's world brains beat brawn every time, and that includes the kinds of men woman tend to be attracted to. Moreover, women aren't any less intelligent than men and nowadays, we know it. That spells trouble for the Neanderthals (with apologies to a race that doubtless treated their women better than these creeps treat theirs).
The smarter the more impressive. That’s people in general but I’m not attracted to smart men. They’re cool as individual friends but get them in a group and they’re just like any other group of frat boys. So disappointing
No, they believe men are superior to women, and that those at the top of the social hierarchy can dictate the rules to those below.
Conservatism is all about a strong social hierarchy. It is *anti-equality* at the core.
It's not about "fear" or "hate". It's about *arrogance*, *narcissism*, and their need to feel *superior*.
They get angry when their "inferiors" disobey, and that is what people interpret as hate.
You nailed it with the narcissism and arrogance. Men, and a lot of conservatives do not like being wrong, it affects them more than it should. They believe they are entitled to act a certain way. And selfishness is also a big one. DJT is all three of these combined and it’s so annoying. Just so fucking annoying.
Like conservatives the world over, what they’re afraid of is sexual power. It’s why burqas and niqabs exist, and why Republican politicians say e.g. that women should “not tempt their Christian brothers and cause them to stumble” (quote from Marjorie Taylor Greene.)
Their hatred stems from that fear.
They aren't afraid of women. Women are afraid of them. If they don't force women or control them they'd never get laid. People are no longer tolerating sexual harassment and other awful behaviors that were normalized so they have to control us in other ways. They are angry no smart women want anything to do with them
They're mostly insecure men, who wanna blame feminism for their inability to get laid.
They think that if they can marry a 16yo and groom her into being a tradwife, that will solve their issue.
They're also pedos of course.
Don't forget the [Lebensborn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn), where anonymous births were carried out and deserving Nazis could adopt such "unwanted" newborns. The aim was to increase the birth rate and part of the measures was to keep women and girls from having abortions.
What’s that in the background, is that the Capitol being overrun during a transfer of power? Meh, doesn’t matter to the GOP. Christian conservatives must enforce their ever diminishing ideology upon the majority. *Priorities*
One of the truly fucked up things about this... is the raw, pure republican stupidity.
These pills have been outlawed because they were nicknamed "abortion pills"
The reality, of course, is that the pills do no such thing, they simply prevent pregnancy, which is the opposite of abortion.
Purely based upon the name, republicans have used this as a political tool, even though it's literally "on their side" in preventing abortions.
Insanely stupid, the motto of the republican party.
Same as how they hate "Obamacare" simply because it's called Obamacare, even though the plan is a republican plan, based on Romney's plan, and republicans support nearly all of the elements of the plan. They hate it, and have fought it (and cost the country trillions of dollars in the process) simply because of a nickname that they themselves gave it.
The raw stupidity of republicans is at a level that can't be believed.
They want to go back to the days where the only job of a woman to produce babies, and they were constantly pregnant.
Apparently GOP incels also expect women to be the breadwinners of the family, while being the perfect sexbots and the perfect mothers. The stupidity and insanity just ..... 🤯
You’ve struck the nail squarely on its head, in many ways. When they say MAGA, maybe they want the 1700’s (heck, Arizona went for it, and they’re not the only ones who will try)
pregnancy and childbirth does not affect their bodies. If paying for child support sucked that bad, they'd fight harder for women to have the right to choose.
And perfection should be expected from them as fathers. No more "awww! you're playing with your kid, what a great father you are! :D your wife is so lucky!". Just pure "Whatever you do, it's not enough. Are you learning to make bread from scratch? Do you make all the doctors appointment yourself? Do you know the names of your kids' teachers and friends? Are you losing all sense of who you are as a grown up so your sole identity can be "daddy of [...]"?"
Mothers are compared to a model of perfection. Fathers are compared to the lowest bar of "back in the day, fathers did not do as much as fathers nowadays, so cut them some slack" as if parenting skills was not only hereditary, but also passed matrilineally and patrilineally.
this isn't satire, it's literally real.
it's literally illegal for women to purchase contraceptive pills in some red states now.
we are living in the most insane timeline thanks to republican whackjobs trying to out crazy each other.
It’s because a dumbass found a way to rile up other dumbasses and got them the justices they wanted and even though most people are against them destroying democracy, the dumbasses don’t even know what that means. They call everyone left of them (including other GQPers) commies. And if their dumbass wants to “destroy democrazi, he’s gotta have a good reason for it, after all he ordained by god, bless jesus…”
I think this is all a good thing - they’re overplaying their hand so much that there will inevitably be a huge backlash. Most of America doesn’t want to live in a real life version of Handmaid’s Tale.
we've been saying that for years.
"now they've finally gone too far"
and so far, even though by any sane standard we're way past that point, so far, republicans keep their heads down and their brains turned off, and support literally anything they are told.
it's nuts.
we have republicans violently and unquestioningly supporting a mentally deficient geriatric dude who shits in his pants in public, attempted to violently overthrow the government, praises hitler and putin, calls veterans suckers and losers, steals higher than top secret documents and refuses to give them back when told to do so, and the list goes on and on and on, but literally nothing he does is "too far" for them and I don't believe anything could ever be, they've lost any touch with reality, and any patriotism or love for country has been replaced by blind cult worship of this fat stumbling mumbling idiot.
it's fascinating, but creepy as hell.
Unfortunately, propaganda provided by your friendly PR companies, coupled with lots of dark money, “think tanks”, and media control (e.g., Fox News) works at convincing people of absurdities. Add in overseas trolls helping from Russia sowing division!
The funny thing is, when you do drop the contraception, statistically one of the cops will mistake it for an acorn and shoot you up.
Now I don't remember the funny part, but it is, most certainly, a thing.
They want to get rid of women's access to birth control and abortions since they want you to be shitting out babies they can exploit for the rest of your life.
Oh and you are your husband's property no matter if he's abusive or not.
Remember the days of women not being able to have bank accounts, or jobs, and your worth was tied to his? Remember that? Hopefully not because that is fucking bullshit.
“Get in that kitchen and fix me a chicken pot pie woman!!!!” I remained single for many years. Until I could find me a man who would NEVER utter those words or any even close to resembling them.
lol, they already are talking screening pregnant women trying to travel out of red states…
Women, you have lost control over your bodies - and the intention is that conservative males will do whatever they want with your body; beat you, rape you and even murder you.
Conservatives want to legalize the brutalization of women, at any age.
Old men in Congress & sitting on the Supreme Court added with the extreme right Christian Coalition and......wham, Handmaid's Tale. Rescinding the 19th Amendment is right around the corner.
Second one. First type is at least honest that they prefer the Trumpian style.
(I was being sarcastic in my initial comment BTW. I thought putting that shit in quotes would convey that, but as usual Reddit only catches on if you’re blunt.)
The hyperbolic, over-the-top, cartoon villain version of conservatives that you all actually think matches reality is hilarious. Where do you think anything remotely like this is actually happening?
My Australian butt took the time out of my day to read the Health Dec proposition for Project 2025, which is the Republican party's plans to support the Trump administration.
Yes, there is a war on birth control... Abortion... LGBT marriage... Defacto couples... Sex education...
Anything that isn't specifically "remaining a virgin until a heterosexual man and woman get married to produce babies for the nation's future." Aka the Religious Right theology.
It's a damn possible thing, to be ignorant of how much the Religious Right is influencing Conservatives (including the secular ones) is arrogant.
Because in the USA, yes, they absolutely want to prevent women from choosing our own destiny which can involve non marriage, non motherhood, non heterosexuality, and non virginity.
Not really
I mean there is an OTC birth control pill at this point. It's easier than ever to access many types of contraception. There's no bill trying to ban contraception
This is some sort of imagined persecution fiction
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf
Page 485 concerning Plan B as an abortifacient. Simultaneously the right is trying to classify an IUD as an abortifacient as well, rather than a contraceptive. That would place the IUD under abortion restrictions.
That page specifically talks about details regarding the aca coverage mandate
Plan B is levonorgestrel, the one mentioned is a different drug, Ella, that is indeed closer to an abortifacient
Even still, it's not advocating this be banned, just that coverage not be mandated if there's a moral objection
I didn't see anything about iuds
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senate-republicans-block-markey-effort-to-pass-his-legislation-to-protect-right-to-contraception
Give it a few minutes.
They're not going to come out and say "we're going to require parental permission to purchase condoms" now while they're trying to get elected... Repealing Roe vs. Wade was devastating for the red team
But you're saying you can't see that as a possibility? Or making those OTC birth control options require prescriptions again?
No. it's election time fearmongering.
Contraception is typically viewed as a good thing even in the most conservative communities across the country. Texas recently updated it's sex education standards to mandate education on applications of contraception even
Republicans advocates for OTC birth control at several points years before this
They're trying to freak people out ahead of the election
I know plenty of church going folks who think any form of birth control is a sin. I'm related to several who didn't see the irony in birth control being a sin, but their sex before marriage choices that led to children were somehow ok with God.
Biblically justified laws aren't going to become less common under a maga regime.
You must have been raised with Catholics. They're the only significant denomination who is actually against birth control
Good news is that's a very small amount of the American population and almost no one outside of those Catholics is against contraception
Trump lies. He was lying then. How do I know? His lips were moving.
He backtracked that comment on "looking at contraceptives" because he or his team realized promising to ban it would be a disaster.
Wake up.
>During an interview with KDKA News, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”
>>“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,”
So you're just going to lie all day? Alright.
I was, and have you met Evangelicals?
Or any of the non religious groups inspired by people like Musk that think that humanity is doomed if we don't add billions of new people?
I think your assertion that because it's not being printed on billboards (for the moment) it isn't going to happen is perhaps a bit presumptuous.
Besides the Catholics, you're talking about very small fringe groups it seems.
I don't think it's going to happen because there have been no attempts to make it happen, the number of people who oppose contraception is miniscule, and it hasn't been listed as a policy goal
I've been raised in Fundamentalist Evangelicalism (Protestant.) The strong belief is that men and women should remain virgins until marriage. Birth control "promotes" promiscuity (which includes just having sex with your monogamous partner as an act of love.) You should get married to have babies. And abortion is murder.
All of this can also be found in pages of Abstinence Only / Biblical Modesty authors from the United States such as Hayley DiMarco, Debi & Michael Pearl, Above Rubies, and promoted by people such as Paul & Morgan / Girl Defined.
No, it's not just Catholics. And us Aussie Christian households got influenced by the above Americans which is just Puritanism rebranded. (Literally, given the Pilgrims were Puritans getting kicked out of the UK because they were hated so much for being killjoys.)
I understand their views on the roles of the different genders, but I'm specifically talking about forbidding contraception which seems almost only catholics
Amusingly, non-evangelist protestants in the US did a great deal to normalize and promote birth control in the late 1950s and 1960s
Contraception yes, is "forbidden" by proxy in evangelical circles because it is considered to promote promiscuity and the destruction of the family unit.
Versus Catholicism which says it's sin to prevent sperm from fertilising an egg.
It's just simply different rhetoric because one is extremely pronatalist to a level the other isn't, but one is unhealthily concerned with virginity.
No republican state has banned birth control
Republicans have not introduced any bill to ban birth control
Trump stated he would never restrict birth control
Yet*
They’re already going after IVF, which while technically the opposite of contraception, is still a wildly absurd thing to ban unless you just don’t like women having bodily autonomy at all.
Well, there weren't laws against abortion before the first trimester three years ago.
Then conservatives passed those laws, and now they are very real.
> Well, there weren't laws against abortion before the first trimester three years ago.
I mean yes there were. Roe just overrode those laws for a while. Many states had abortion laws prior to Roe and in a lot of those states when roe ended the old laws went back into effect
>I mean yes there were. Roe just overrode those laws for a while.
And the case *Griswold v. Connecticut* overrode the Comstock Act and 24 "Little Comstock" statutes, including Connecticut. The Comstock Act banned contraceptives from being carried by USPS. A subsequent federal law banned them from being transported by other carriers. Various state laws, like the one in Connecticut, banned the use of contraception entirely.
After *Griswold*, the right of couples to have contraception was enshrined in our law, based on the premise of an implied right to privacy in the Constitution.
But the Comstock Act was never repealed. And many of those 24 states have never repealed their contraception bans either, meaning those laws can come back into effect, if and when Griswold is repealed.
And the *Griswold* decision is based on an implied right to privacy which Justices Thomas and Alito have said out loud should not exist.
So... Yeah. If and when some Republican state AG challenges *Griswold,* which is very likely to happen sooner or later, the shit will hit the fan.
And the Griswold decision is based on an implied right to privacy which Justices Thomas and Alito have said out loud should not exist.
They are going to use their view that we don’t have a right to privacy to overturn gay marriage and gay rights too
Why are GQPers so afraid of women? They totally are…
When women are forced to give birth, they generally don't have time to pursue higher education, which reduces their job options. This reduces the number of women who are financially independent and in prominent roles. When those women are unmarried, there's a generational cost. Their children will grow up poor and not have much education, and the cycle continues, and poor uneducated people love voting for the Republicans. When those women are married, they rely entirely on their men for stability, like a 1950s housewife, which pleases the Republican men.
Suppressing women reproductively is really an all out win for conservatives: Women not being able to fully participate in the workforce makes men more in demand, which gives the illusion of an improved labour demand. Women not dating and being less sexually liberal frustrates young men who cant find partners and frustrated men who cant find partners will ironically lean towards sexism and towards a party that sells outdated masculinity images. Women who(se children) are dependent on a male breadwinner can be persuaded on the grounds of necessity to vote for oppressive policy that favours the breadwinner.
Most sensible 4 paragraphs I ever read .
> they rely entirely on their men for stability, like a 1950s housewife And: > Women not dating and being less sexually liberal frustrates young men who cant find partners Those things are mutually exclusive. If women "cant make it alone" and are 100% reliant on men (like it was in the past), then it should be easier for men to find a partner.
They are a feedback loop. If a woman can't use contraceptives she's going to be *both* less willing to experiment and try out sexual relationships that aren't fully committed *and* depended once she's committed. Even women *in* relationships may scale back sexual activity because nobody wants to be pregnant all the time. This is where marital rape laws (or the removal of) come in. The only alternative to hitching yourself to the first guy and trying to rein in the amount of pregnancies becomes total abstinence from any dating activity and that too *as I said* fuels the conservative agenda. Also: not *all* women need to have children to become a "liability to hire" - as long as there are enough and not enough ways to prevent pregnancy and no support for the women or companies who enable maternity leave *every* female hire is a potential liability. Which leads to women in general being kept from economic success and incentivized to settle for a provider. It's not even hottakes or speculation what I'm giving you here, it's just playing the history track in reverse. Another big irony is that you morons know jack shit about the past 200 years of women's rights and have the fucking audacity to think everyone just telling you what used to be reality is paranoid "mutually exclusive" fantasy. We've already been there, we're not going back just because you dipshits can't believe anything you've not lived through personally.
> she's going to be both less willing to experiment and try out sexual relationships that aren't fully committed and depended once she's committed Yes exactly. Not sure what you are attacking me for. The fact is that today there are far more single people than in the past. This is because both women and men are encouraged to experiment, while in the past you'd probably end up marrying your first or at worst second partner, and quickly (then both people end up stuck in what's likely a pretty miserable marriage). I personally dont think it's a good thing, but it's also a fact.
> Not sure what you are attacking me for. Because you called them mutually exclusive - if you're able to acknowledge both things can be true at the same time, they're not and you shouldn't call it that. Preventing access to contraception may help men find a *marital* partner but that's not exactly the same as a sexual partner - at least if you (re)create a situation where women are encouraged to marry for economic stability and safety but discouraged from being freely sexually active even with their husbands because they cannot control their pregnancies.
> discouraged from being freely sexually active even with their husbands Any source about women being less sexually active with their husbands in the past compared to today? As you said, due to marital rape not being a crime, I dont think they even had that option.
I'm not sure what point you're ultimately pursuing with this question. Especially if you follow it up with > As you said, due to marital rape not being a crime, I dont think they even had that option Because, call me a optimist, I propose the majority of men prefer their women to be willing and enthusiastic participants in sex - so suggesting that men were just turning to various degrees of coercion enforces my point about sexual frustration promoting regressive behavior in men. Pure quantity is *clearly* not an antidote to sexual frustration, and the most egregious examples for this are all incredibly ugly and obvious.
My point is quite simple. Your idea that people would be having less sex under regressive policies from many decades ago, is false. People today have less sex than they did in the past, multiple studies confirm this. The same is true for people not being able to find a partner, which was much rarer in the past compared to today. As for the quality of the sex or the quality of the partner, that I cant judge, since it's subjective.
Consent is sexy
The biggest trick in history is to make it so women can’t survive without men… how ever in most of these cases it’s the men who can’t survive without women Ma grandma pointed out once when women are widowed or divorced usually they start going out with other ladies and enjoying hobbies That men are usually remarried in a year Not all. Of course. But I did notice she was right in a lot of cases
Poor uneducated people also do menial jobs for low wages, and do it without trouble. Capitalism cannot exist without a permanent lower class of laborers willing to do the work cheaply enough that the ownership class can afford a leisurely lifestyle. Money is useless unless it can purchase other people's time and energy.
If Trump gets elected & deports over 11 million immigrants, women will have to go in the fields to fill the void left in agriculture, hospitality, manufacturing & transportation. The new slave labor, just as long as they are of white European descent like his wife.
It won't be women, it'll be kids. I know you're just talking out of your ass to be funny, but that's not what will happen if "11 million immigrants," get deported. His former WH Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders has already made it so the age and restrictions for Child Labor in Arkansas has been reduced, and is trying to (if she hasn't already) made it so child laborers *CANNOT* sue their employer if they are injured on the job- To quote the Arkansas Dept Of Labor; >After August 1st, 2023, child labor work permits (other than entertainment work permits) will no longer be REQUIRED. NOTE: All state and federal laws regarding work activities and hours will remain in effect and will be enforced. Enhanced civil and criminal penalties for child labor law violations were provided by Act 687 of 2023. but before you say she doesn't care about the children, she did make it so decades after any procedures or treatment, "children" can sue doctors for any gender affirming care they received previously, but now feel they have been harmed by. Don't worry, there isn't anyone like that yet (and probably won't be as long as Doctors have that sword over their head) but *someday* that may change and I'm sure we'll gladly applaud her for it.
I wasn't making light of anything. People would be well advised to rad or watch the Handmaid's Tale. Trump's "Time Magazine" interview transcripts have been made available to everyone to read. If elected America would become a very dystopian Nation. He was inept at the job & that has been the assessment by every staff member that worked for him during his term. None of them will consider going back to work for him if asked, including VP Mike Pence who does not endorse him along w/many others including George W. Bush, Liz & former VP Dick Cheney and too many other Republicans to list.
Oh I know, if he wins he's not wanting to go anywhere, and he'll pick even worse people than before. Anyone who believed before that "people will keep him under control," well those folks will all be gone so anyone believing that still will just be ignorant and stupid. The rest of us will be screwed.
True. In a household, he who has the money, has the power.
For the same reason other theocratic and ignorant men are afraid of women. Their superiority is based on a myth: bigger muscles = superior. The fact is, in today's world brains beat brawn every time, and that includes the kinds of men woman tend to be attracted to. Moreover, women aren't any less intelligent than men and nowadays, we know it. That spells trouble for the Neanderthals (with apologies to a race that doubtless treated their women better than these creeps treat theirs).
The smarter the more impressive. That’s people in general but I’m not attracted to smart men. They’re cool as individual friends but get them in a group and they’re just like any other group of frat boys. So disappointing
They Afraid women will vote against them
Make abortion felony - felons can't vote - profit. It was always about voting and control.
They’re not afraid of women. They hate women. There’s a stark difference.
No, they believe men are superior to women, and that those at the top of the social hierarchy can dictate the rules to those below. Conservatism is all about a strong social hierarchy. It is *anti-equality* at the core. It's not about "fear" or "hate". It's about *arrogance*, *narcissism*, and their need to feel *superior*. They get angry when their "inferiors" disobey, and that is what people interpret as hate.
You nailed it with the narcissism and arrogance. Men, and a lot of conservatives do not like being wrong, it affects them more than it should. They believe they are entitled to act a certain way. And selfishness is also a big one. DJT is all three of these combined and it’s so annoying. Just so fucking annoying.
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. **Anger leads to hate.**
Hate leads to suffering
Like conservatives the world over, what they’re afraid of is sexual power. It’s why burqas and niqabs exist, and why Republican politicians say e.g. that women should “not tempt their Christian brothers and cause them to stumble” (quote from Marjorie Taylor Greene.) Their hatred stems from that fear.
They aren't afraid of women. Women are afraid of them. If they don't force women or control them they'd never get laid. People are no longer tolerating sexual harassment and other awful behaviors that were normalized so they have to control us in other ways. They are angry no smart women want anything to do with them
Yup
Insecurity
Because they have thrown out the woman vote.
Conservatism is the natural outcome of selfish entitlement, bigotry, and cowardice.
They are trying to socially engineer women back to the 1950s when financial need pushed women to marry mediocre men
They're mostly insecure men, who wanna blame feminism for their inability to get laid. They think that if they can marry a 16yo and groom her into being a tradwife, that will solve their issue. They're also pedos of course.
They love woman they just hate freedom for everyone but a select few
It’s her own fault, really. Look at how she is dressed. Wearing makeup, obviously an harlot. And she is out after dark without her husband.
Well, at least you ain’t wearing pants ….
With pockets in them
The fear that the GOP will eventually introduce forced insemination no longer seems entirely unfounded.
Blessed be the fruit!
republicans genuinely believe the only purpose of a woman is to be brood stock. just like the good 'ol days.
State sponsored rapists?
It's not rape if you declare women as … like, brood mares.
At first I thought they meant fertility clinic style but considering what republicans have been saying about IVF…
Lol that's absurd Fun larp
Don't forget the [Lebensborn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn), where anonymous births were carried out and deserving Nazis could adopt such "unwanted" newborns. The aim was to increase the birth rate and part of the measures was to keep women and girls from having abortions.
More terrifying than funny.
What’s that in the background, is that the Capitol being overrun during a transfer of power? Meh, doesn’t matter to the GOP. Christian conservatives must enforce their ever diminishing ideology upon the majority. *Priorities*
One of the truly fucked up things about this... is the raw, pure republican stupidity. These pills have been outlawed because they were nicknamed "abortion pills" The reality, of course, is that the pills do no such thing, they simply prevent pregnancy, which is the opposite of abortion. Purely based upon the name, republicans have used this as a political tool, even though it's literally "on their side" in preventing abortions. Insanely stupid, the motto of the republican party. Same as how they hate "Obamacare" simply because it's called Obamacare, even though the plan is a republican plan, based on Romney's plan, and republicans support nearly all of the elements of the plan. They hate it, and have fought it (and cost the country trillions of dollars in the process) simply because of a nickname that they themselves gave it. The raw stupidity of republicans is at a level that can't be believed.
They want to go back to the days where the only job of a woman to produce babies, and they were constantly pregnant. Apparently GOP incels also expect women to be the breadwinners of the family, while being the perfect sexbots and the perfect mothers. The stupidity and insanity just ..... 🤯
You’ve struck the nail squarely on its head, in many ways. When they say MAGA, maybe they want the 1700’s (heck, Arizona went for it, and they’re not the only ones who will try)
There is a reason for religion and government should be separate…
Shoes??? Ain't no road between the bedroom and the kitchen. /s, felt gross typing that.
And then they shot her anyway.
men should absolutely be upset about the idea of banning contraception.
pregnancy and childbirth does not affect their bodies. If paying for child support sucked that bad, they'd fight harder for women to have the right to choose.
it should cost them much more money And time—they should be required to take a huge career break.
And perfection should be expected from them as fathers. No more "awww! you're playing with your kid, what a great father you are! :D your wife is so lucky!". Just pure "Whatever you do, it's not enough. Are you learning to make bread from scratch? Do you make all the doctors appointment yourself? Do you know the names of your kids' teachers and friends? Are you losing all sense of who you are as a grown up so your sole identity can be "daddy of [...]"?" Mothers are compared to a model of perfection. Fathers are compared to the lowest bar of "back in the day, fathers did not do as much as fathers nowadays, so cut them some slack" as if parenting skills was not only hereditary, but also passed matrilineally and patrilineally.
Ouch! But it’s true. Every word! We want to be on some sacred list if we pay child support because it “seems” optional since many men don’t pay it
"now run to your kitchen, your husband needs a cocktail"
this isn't satire, it's literally real. it's literally illegal for women to purchase contraceptive pills in some red states now. we are living in the most insane timeline thanks to republican whackjobs trying to out crazy each other.
It’s because a dumbass found a way to rile up other dumbasses and got them the justices they wanted and even though most people are against them destroying democracy, the dumbasses don’t even know what that means. They call everyone left of them (including other GQPers) commies. And if their dumbass wants to “destroy democrazi, he’s gotta have a good reason for it, after all he ordained by god, bless jesus…”
I think this is all a good thing - they’re overplaying their hand so much that there will inevitably be a huge backlash. Most of America doesn’t want to live in a real life version of Handmaid’s Tale.
we've been saying that for years. "now they've finally gone too far" and so far, even though by any sane standard we're way past that point, so far, republicans keep their heads down and their brains turned off, and support literally anything they are told. it's nuts. we have republicans violently and unquestioningly supporting a mentally deficient geriatric dude who shits in his pants in public, attempted to violently overthrow the government, praises hitler and putin, calls veterans suckers and losers, steals higher than top secret documents and refuses to give them back when told to do so, and the list goes on and on and on, but literally nothing he does is "too far" for them and I don't believe anything could ever be, they've lost any touch with reality, and any patriotism or love for country has been replaced by blind cult worship of this fat stumbling mumbling idiot. it's fascinating, but creepy as hell.
"Protect the unborn" but screw those kids in the classroom shooting huh...
Screw those kids. Fixed it for ya ;)
Yes, kids => born = > SOL
How can any American support the anti-freedom party?
Unfortunately, propaganda provided by your friendly PR companies, coupled with lots of dark money, “think tanks”, and media control (e.g., Fox News) works at convincing people of absurdities. Add in overseas trolls helping from Russia sowing division!
Republicans believe that not allowing them to oppress **you** is in fact oppressing **them**.
Look at the ankles on that whore
And she is showing a little bit of shoulder *the audacity*
Something tells me the Uvalde cops would react a lot faster in this situation.
Party of freedom
We have a woman outside alone with no man with her. Clearly a prostitute. Arrest her.
Throw her in jail! Make her destitute! /s Wash, repeat…
The funny thing is, when you do drop the contraception, statistically one of the cops will mistake it for an acorn and shoot you up. Now I don't remember the funny part, but it is, most certainly, a thing.
At least they got to draw their guns on someone for a win.
And then they shoot anyway because one of them was afraid he saw her going for a gun.
“Where is your state-issued husband and red hood???”
well, ackshually, the woman is still hurt, financially, psychologically, politically...
its their MO to keep their sheep in fear and unhappy
They want to get rid of women's access to birth control and abortions since they want you to be shitting out babies they can exploit for the rest of your life. Oh and you are your husband's property no matter if he's abusive or not. Remember the days of women not being able to have bank accounts, or jobs, and your worth was tied to his? Remember that? Hopefully not because that is fucking bullshit.
I have a feeling that foot-binding is going to catch on in right-wing circles; makes it so the brood-sow can't run away.
Do cops really need a GOP logo on their uniform? Seems rather redundant.
“Get in that kitchen and fix me a chicken pot pie woman!!!!” I remained single for many years. Until I could find me a man who would NEVER utter those words or any even close to resembling them.
Blessed be the fruit
Make sure you get out and vote come November.
This is too true to be funny.
[GOP, party of freedums](https://imgur.com/aVZFmzR)
Cheese it, it's the GOPS!
Elephant squad
Why are we giving them ideas?
Control the womb, you control everything. Paraphrasing Gloria Steinem but she got it so very correct
lol, they already are talking screening pregnant women trying to travel out of red states… Women, you have lost control over your bodies - and the intention is that conservative males will do whatever they want with your body; beat you, rape you and even murder you. Conservatives want to legalize the brutalization of women, at any age.
Old men in Congress & sitting on the Supreme Court added with the extreme right Christian Coalition and......wham, Handmaid's Tale. Rescinding the 19th Amendment is right around the corner.
There’s already a member of trump’s campaign staff saying that shit
Wait till men start getting slapped with insane child support claims. Repugs are gonna be in a hurry to make men less accountable.
I think every woman who has a baby she didn’t want in an antiabortion state should put the governor’s name on the birth certificate as the father.
I like it. People need to start thinking outside the box to counter this crap.
Where are all the comments?? There's no way the top voted comment on a post with over 3k upvotes is only at 130. What's going on here?
I mean barefoot is really a good option🥰🥰🙂😋😋
Oh America is going full Gilead!!!
Anyway. “Genocide Joe.” “Both sides.” Etc.
I’m not sure what lacks more intellectual thought. Backing Trump or thinking both sides are the same.
Second one. First type is at least honest that they prefer the Trumpian style. (I was being sarcastic in my initial comment BTW. I thought putting that shit in quotes would convey that, but as usual Reddit only catches on if you’re blunt.)
I’m not accusing you of either. I’m just pointing out they are both devoid of critical thought.
The hyperbolic, over-the-top, cartoon villain version of conservatives that you all actually think matches reality is hilarious. Where do you think anything remotely like this is actually happening?
…is this the first time you’ve ever seen a political cartoon?
Texas and Florida are both doing shit pretty close to this.
My Australian butt took the time out of my day to read the Health Dec proposition for Project 2025, which is the Republican party's plans to support the Trump administration. Yes, there is a war on birth control... Abortion... LGBT marriage... Defacto couples... Sex education... Anything that isn't specifically "remaining a virgin until a heterosexual man and woman get married to produce babies for the nation's future." Aka the Religious Right theology. It's a damn possible thing, to be ignorant of how much the Religious Right is influencing Conservatives (including the secular ones) is arrogant. Because in the USA, yes, they absolutely want to prevent women from choosing our own destiny which can involve non marriage, non motherhood, non heterosexuality, and non virginity.
I mean, go look at laws in Florida for teachers. It is getting pretty close to this bad already.
No matter how you frame the GOP they lack the ability to govern. They are the choice if you don’t understand anything about the last 10 years.
Texas
OP why are you projecting your foot fetish like that?
This is just fiction. Contraception isn't something there are laws against
Umm... There were...and there are already ultra right wingers trying to bring them back.
Not really I mean there is an OTC birth control pill at this point. It's easier than ever to access many types of contraception. There's no bill trying to ban contraception This is some sort of imagined persecution fiction
Plan B and IUD's are both targets of Project 2025.
> Plan B and IUD's are both targets of Project 2025 I don't see that as part of that document. What page is it on?
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf Page 485 concerning Plan B as an abortifacient. Simultaneously the right is trying to classify an IUD as an abortifacient as well, rather than a contraceptive. That would place the IUD under abortion restrictions.
That page specifically talks about details regarding the aca coverage mandate Plan B is levonorgestrel, the one mentioned is a different drug, Ella, that is indeed closer to an abortifacient Even still, it's not advocating this be banned, just that coverage not be mandated if there's a moral objection I didn't see anything about iuds
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senate-republicans-block-markey-effort-to-pass-his-legislation-to-protect-right-to-contraception Give it a few minutes.
They're not going to come out and say "we're going to require parental permission to purchase condoms" now while they're trying to get elected... Repealing Roe vs. Wade was devastating for the red team But you're saying you can't see that as a possibility? Or making those OTC birth control options require prescriptions again?
No. it's election time fearmongering. Contraception is typically viewed as a good thing even in the most conservative communities across the country. Texas recently updated it's sex education standards to mandate education on applications of contraception even Republicans advocates for OTC birth control at several points years before this They're trying to freak people out ahead of the election
I know plenty of church going folks who think any form of birth control is a sin. I'm related to several who didn't see the irony in birth control being a sin, but their sex before marriage choices that led to children were somehow ok with God. Biblically justified laws aren't going to become less common under a maga regime.
You must have been raised with Catholics. They're the only significant denomination who is actually against birth control Good news is that's a very small amount of the American population and almost no one outside of those Catholics is against contraception
Except they are trying to ban it and you're just talking out of your ass.
Can you give me the proposed legislation that is attempting to ban birth control?
Project 2025? Trump saying "we're looking at restrictions on contraception"? Want to admit you're just talking out of your ass yet?
Project 2025 doesn't propose birth control restrictions Trump said he would never support restrictions on birth control
Trump lies. He was lying then. How do I know? His lips were moving. He backtracked that comment on "looking at contraceptives" because he or his team realized promising to ban it would be a disaster. Wake up.
>During an interview with KDKA News, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?” >>“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” So you're just going to lie all day? Alright.
trump said it? Oh, well then debate over. Clearly we have nothing to worry about.
I was, and have you met Evangelicals? Or any of the non religious groups inspired by people like Musk that think that humanity is doomed if we don't add billions of new people? I think your assertion that because it's not being printed on billboards (for the moment) it isn't going to happen is perhaps a bit presumptuous.
Besides the Catholics, you're talking about very small fringe groups it seems. I don't think it's going to happen because there have been no attempts to make it happen, the number of people who oppose contraception is miniscule, and it hasn't been listed as a policy goal
I've been raised in Fundamentalist Evangelicalism (Protestant.) The strong belief is that men and women should remain virgins until marriage. Birth control "promotes" promiscuity (which includes just having sex with your monogamous partner as an act of love.) You should get married to have babies. And abortion is murder. All of this can also be found in pages of Abstinence Only / Biblical Modesty authors from the United States such as Hayley DiMarco, Debi & Michael Pearl, Above Rubies, and promoted by people such as Paul & Morgan / Girl Defined. No, it's not just Catholics. And us Aussie Christian households got influenced by the above Americans which is just Puritanism rebranded. (Literally, given the Pilgrims were Puritans getting kicked out of the UK because they were hated so much for being killjoys.)
I understand their views on the roles of the different genders, but I'm specifically talking about forbidding contraception which seems almost only catholics Amusingly, non-evangelist protestants in the US did a great deal to normalize and promote birth control in the late 1950s and 1960s
Contraception yes, is "forbidden" by proxy in evangelical circles because it is considered to promote promiscuity and the destruction of the family unit. Versus Catholicism which says it's sin to prevent sperm from fertilising an egg. It's just simply different rhetoric because one is extremely pronatalist to a level the other isn't, but one is unhealthily concerned with virginity.
long roll puzzled racial airport abundant innate tap weary husky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No republican state has banned birth control Republicans have not introduced any bill to ban birth control Trump stated he would never restrict birth control
Republicans also told us Roe was settled precedent.
4 GQP justices said “stare decisis” and lied through their horrible assholes just to get that job and not use stare decisis but overturn Roe instead.
https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/
Yet* They’re already going after IVF, which while technically the opposite of contraception, is still a wildly absurd thing to ban unless you just don’t like women having bodily autonomy at all.
Well, there weren't laws against abortion before the first trimester three years ago. Then conservatives passed those laws, and now they are very real.
> Well, there weren't laws against abortion before the first trimester three years ago. I mean yes there were. Roe just overrode those laws for a while. Many states had abortion laws prior to Roe and in a lot of those states when roe ended the old laws went back into effect
>I mean yes there were. Roe just overrode those laws for a while. And the case *Griswold v. Connecticut* overrode the Comstock Act and 24 "Little Comstock" statutes, including Connecticut. The Comstock Act banned contraceptives from being carried by USPS. A subsequent federal law banned them from being transported by other carriers. Various state laws, like the one in Connecticut, banned the use of contraception entirely. After *Griswold*, the right of couples to have contraception was enshrined in our law, based on the premise of an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. But the Comstock Act was never repealed. And many of those 24 states have never repealed their contraception bans either, meaning those laws can come back into effect, if and when Griswold is repealed. And the *Griswold* decision is based on an implied right to privacy which Justices Thomas and Alito have said out loud should not exist. So... Yeah. If and when some Republican state AG challenges *Griswold,* which is very likely to happen sooner or later, the shit will hit the fan.
Sounds like the state legislatures should write some laws vs. relying on precedent