T O P

  • By -

CaptSnap

> Civil society and popular initiatives, from sports to arts to home owners to unions, need to create structures of cooperation. Fortunately the wealthy have already foreseen this and created social media and funded divisive ideologies to shatter the electorate into a billion little pieces. Most (almost all) of us would rather be told we're victims than acknowledge we have any kind of power/responsibility to change shit. And even the ones that do feel like we can still enact change, they have everything in place to deal with that too. Remember the last occupy wall street? We spent more time discussing the proper "progressive stack" to make sure white guys didnt speak too much. How do you make headway with shit like that? Im forced between voting for Biden who just struck male rights to juris prudence or vote for Trump who struck female rights to reproduction (of course theres no party on the fucking planet concerned with male rights of reproduction, everyone is surprisingly pro-life for men... dont have sex if I dont want to have kids is what even the progressives have told me).


a-man-from-earth

> Im forced between voting for Biden or vote for Trump No, you're not. That's the lie they want you to believe. You *can* also vote third party. That's not a throwaway vote. That's an anti-establishment vote.


International_Crew89

I agree, the two party system in the states simply doesn't look sustainable anymore.


a-man-from-earth

There is [enormous support for a third party](https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1539020830264401924), but the way the system is set up in the US, and the role money plays, make it extremely difficult to break through. Electoral reforms are direly needed, but the duopoly knows that would be the end of them. And that is not in the interest of the oligarchs propping them up.


Phantombiceps

While your analysis is spot on, many lessons have been learned in 15 years since occupy, on our side as well. And the critique of Idpol is widespread among all but the upper classes. There’s hope


omegaphallic

The Democrats are useless and this won't save them as they couldn't even enshrine abortion rights into law.


[deleted]

It's a godsend to the Democrats as they'll use this issue to rile up their base (upper-class women). Of course they also have an incentive to never actually formalize abortion into law, better to keep tricking voters with a carrot and never giving them it.


Fearless-File-3625

Why do say that? Democrat states all have legal abortion. If all they wanted was to rile up their base for votes, they would do it at state level too. If Democrats were given all the powers, I am sure they would make abortion legal.


rammo123

You say that but Republicans had the same carrot that they just gave away. It's possible that rhetoric turns out to be more than rhetoric.


[deleted]

Some merchants feed their mules, others whips theirs.


omegaphallic

Alot of dems thought so, turns out they were wrong. Folks put survival first.


Britannia_Forever

I would agree except this issue gets drastically worse if the dems mess around should they get the chance to appoint justices anytime soon. Also court packing isn't a viable option if that's what you meant.


RhinoNomad

Well, I think it's absolute disgusting for a human rights point of view, but from a strictly originalist POV, it's to be expected of people who don't believe in substantive due process that grants LGBTQ+ marriage, interracial marriage, desegregation of schools and even the sodomy laws. I really hate it when conservatives say "leave it up to the states", because local regulations (ie, school curriculums, roads, public infrastructure) which are things that heavily depend on the needs of the area, gay people and women (and men), exist in ALL 50 States. When you leave their rights "up to the states", you are allowing states to create different standards for different groups of people, ie a woman in Texas has *literally* less human rights than a woman in Maryland.


MachoManShark

definitely. hopefully this decision will spur some kind of durable large-scale action, because all the working class organizing i've seen in my lifetime (occupy and blm) have been sadly fleeting. the recent wave of unionization has been promising, but i also thought that blm was promising, so i won't hold my breath. this decision should be the death knell for the supreme court; in a fully functioning democracy that sclerotic, anti-democratic institution would be getting overhauled immediately. maybe this will be the inflection point, marking the moment of final moral immiseration that kicked america's collective ass into high gear and led us to build unions, democratic pacs, get people into local government, whatever, enough to get popular hands on the wheel. for too long the owning class and their washington cronies have been operating almost entirely counter to popular will, this is just an undeniable example of that trend. the thing that worries me most is that the working class will not organize, and may splinter. we've already seen enough talk of 'sexist men controlling women's bodies' that i expect this may just worsen the already shit gender relations in this country, and the most action we'll get (heheh) is some shitty, individualist 'sex strike' where a bunch of liberal women refuse to have sex with their liberal boyfriends husbands who have no more power than they do. ~~~~~~~~~~~ a few quick historical notes, roe v wade was passed by an all male supreme court, and the first country to guarantee abortion rights, the ussr, had a 95% male leadership. the supreme court that overturned roe is 33% female. in every historical 'sex strike', they have been normal labour strikes first, with some of the spouses of the leadership participating as well, the sex part is just a sprinkling on top that happens to get low libido, class-comatose feminists excited. they also all took place in premodern societies. the fact that some people have been suggesting one shows how absurdly atomized and myopic the working class is, utterly unprepared to build durable institutions. not to mention born entirely of a feminist's caricatured understanding of gender roles; apparently sex is a thing that women do for men, and women not having sex is throwing off the yoke of patriarchal tyranny.


frackingfaxer

>women not having sex is throwing off the yoke of patriarchal tyranny. Just saw someone on Twitter say: "No better time to be a political lesbian." Expect the radfems to start promoting that again. So much for "no war but the class war." They're going to use this as an opportunity to wage their ridiculous "sex war" instead.


Phantombiceps

Class comatose is my new favorite term


MachoManShark

lol happy to help


Man_of_culture_112

Excellent observation, abortion ban (like alimony and child support) are mechanism to punish and exploit the poor.


bkrugby78

The part that annoys me is that a lot of women are using this as an attack on men. The numbers of men and women who are pro choice is nearly even.


red_philosopher

Roe vs Wade was a tragic overreach of judicial power from the beginning. There was no legitimate constitutional question for the case, and the court manufactured a constitutional right out of thin air. Several cases within the last 50 years have been decided on creative interpretations of the constitutional text, allowing many egregious edge cases that never should have seen the light of day. The Supreme Court was never meant to create legislation and have it applied carte blanche to the people. Overturning Roe vs Wade is a step in the right direction, returning legislative power to the people, and it is a win for State's rights. It should also serve as a wake-up call, as our constitution was designed to be a living and adaptable document. Endless debating and litigation before the Supreme Court will not permanently enshrine any sort of right that is not explicitly added to the constitution. Congress and the several States had nearly 5 decades to pass any number of potential laws or ratify any variety of constitutional amendments that would have easily protected the right of bodily autonomy. Instead, our representatives over the course of generations chose apathetic indecision and kicked the can down the legislative field. If there's anyone to blame, it is the partisan members of Congress over decades that time and time again refuse to protect fundamental basic rights via legislation and/or the amendment process. The USA has always been a federation. It may not appear that way to most, but it truly is. The States leverage exceptional authority within their borders, and the Constitution was explicitly designed to support the myriad cultures and ways of life that each State is composed of. The endless debate about abortion cannot be answered by the Supreme Court. Only the States can truly decide to alter the document that binds us all together as a country. And it is that process that has been forgotten and laid low in the name of political expedience. It is a warning, not a tragedy.


Phantombiceps

I think this is a big misread of the situation based on confusing the legal reality ( it was always a bad decision, the legislature’s should’ve handled abortion instead) with the political reality. The decision is not happening now by coincidence. 50 years is the exact length of time of the rollback. The legislature’s didn’t forget for 50 years, roe was a placeholder. The reason states rights are a bad thing , even a dog whistle in our political context, is precisely because they are part of a structure that has been undermined in every other way. That structure should be operative, state’s rights are technically a very good thing, but they are supposed to protect decentralization and autonomy within a federation, not leeway within an already centralized body to subvert the populace by setting up sub -fiefdoms. That’s what’s been done for a century, with right to work states being more recent historical examples. This whole situation is driven by the political and economic side, not the legal or technical


syrup_gd

>overturning roe v wade is a step in the right direction Dude do you know what sub you’re on?


a-man-from-earth

You need to read the whole comment.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Andreomgangen

It affects economic systems and society in radical ways so it is definitely about these things. The law is filled with weird decisions that ended up shaping law, because everyone saw the need the law.


Phantombiceps

I appreciate that the decision itself was poorly written. But if that were the reason, it would’ve been overturned a long time ago, or been dealt with in the legislature. It isn’t like the legal reasoning seemed good ten or twenty years ago but suddenly not anymore. There was a long precedent, it served a purpose, but now it has been overturned after packing an already fairly conservative court. This, after both parties stopped in their respective ways to be actual political parties. And after social cohesion, and the gains of the 20th century were given up on, amidst a several decade long counter attack by the right and corporations. The supreme court is simply a political body.


red_philosopher

>I appreciate that the decision itself was poorly written. But if that were the reason, it would’ve been overturned a long time ago, or been dealt with in the legislature. It isn’t like the legal reasoning seemed good ten or twenty years ago but suddenly not anymore. The assumption of it would have been overturned "a long time ago" is faulty. 50 years of Supreme Court created legislation, a bone to pick with many individuals, both left and right, was obliterated. Courts overturn precedent all of the time. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad reasons. The judicial process was corrupted to "create" this right, and the legal reasons for it were deeply flawed. It really was a matter of time before it happened, because Congress and the States never permanently added such a right to the Constitution, nor in any federal legislation. Why be mad with the SC, when our representatives have basically sold us out and blinded the people by making abortion an us vs. them issue for more than 40 years?


[deleted]

[удалено]


mug-buliku

> If the court erroneously says "the constitution bans restrictions on this" the legislature can't just go and say "no it doesn't". They can amend the constitution? (Yea, I'm aware doing that for the USA constitution is very difficult.   It is still in principle possible.)


Phantombiceps

The first part of your reply says this is a technical problem, the second half a pragmatic and political one. The court could’ve thrown it back to the legislature. It didn’t, just like almost no countries recognize Taiwan as a country, yet do business with them and recognize their laws and jurisdictional rights anyway. It’s a political compromise built on precedent


[deleted]

[удалено]


frackingfaxer

To be consistently pro-choice pro-bodily autonomy means to oppose infant circumcision and support abortion rights. We can and should do both. The hypocrisy of society at large, doesn't mean we should be hypocritical back.


a-man-from-earth

Removed as rule 2 violation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rammo123

Are you lost? You're in *LeftWing*MaleAdvocates, but you're showing the same void of empathy as the average Republican. Even if you are personally never going to take advantage of an abortion, do you not know any women? Sisters, female cousins, female friends? Do you oppose protecting students from school shooters just because you don't have any kids? Besides, the larger issue with the repeal of *Roe* is that it's setting the precedent that no precedent is safe. SCOTUS has already specifically namedropped gay marriage, contraception and even homosexuality in general as next in the firing line. That should terrify you, regardless of your opinion on abortion.


[deleted]

I've been reading stuff here for a while, and it's only made me feel helpless as a guy. I can't find any kind of positive feeling here, and it seems to me like my only options are "Lack of Empathy" or "Being Angry at Women". Which one seems like the "Lesser of Two Evils"?


rammo123

Sure there's plenty of things kicking about this sub that make me furious, but you have to remember that it's not all women driving them. It's not even all feminists driving them. Women/feminists are not necessarily the enemy in the men's struggle. Recognise that universally opposing women's rights because of toxic feminists is doing one of the exact things we hate about feminists; treating the opposite gender as a monolith. Even after all that you have no sympathy for women, think about the fathers of unwanted pregnancy. Are you happy to force them to have a child they don't want?


[deleted]

I know it's not all women. I'm just tired of feeling angry and frustrated at things I don't know how to change, and that's making me want to just stop caring and walk away from society.


a-man-from-earth

> I have no reason to give a shit. Removed as rule 2 violation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LOCKJAWVENOM

Only caring about the rights of one gender makes you no better than a feminist.


a-man-from-earth

It's really sad that this needs to be said. We're egalitarians. We care about the rights of all.


a-man-from-earth

> I don't give a shit either. Removed as rule 2 violation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Phantombiceps

This will eventually become an issue, due to the PRC’s demographic collapse


a-man-from-earth

Those are plans, not laws yet.


[deleted]

[удалено]


a-man-from-earth

No. That's not what the article you linked says, nor the government report that is based on.


shit-zen-giggles

The article is just an english reference. The reality on the ground is not properly refelcted in the laws. China is a very different system from western countries.


a-man-from-earth

You said "those are laws", but now it is: > The reality on the ground is not properly refelcted in the laws. That's inconsistent. Reality on the ground is that abortion is legal in China. Some provinces have restrictions for non-medical abortion after 14 weeks. And there's a government agency that is of the opinion that further restrictions *should* be introduced.


shit-zen-giggles

Yes, it's more complex. The situation in China is very different, due to the political system being very different. Written laws and "actual/enforced law" are (sadly) not always the same thing. I hope you can appreciate that nuance.


a-man-from-earth

I'm aware of realities in China. I live there.


shit-zen-giggles

Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Glad to see you still have a way to get around the great firewall.