WHEN was the last time a rep was barred from speaking in the MI legislature?

WHEN will they be back in session?

Biological Ali: salvador.hardin: quickdraw: Just a couple years ago I was wondering why they kept trotting out the vagina monologues every year. I thought it was no longer necessary. Clearly I was wrong. Good on them for performing it today. It was never a more timely performance.

salvador.hardin: Especially if the GOP didn't censure her for using the word Vagina, but for making a rape allegation against another legislator.

The only person bringing up rape is you. You sound pretty crazy but thats what happens when people try to rationalize an insane argument that doesnt exist except in their own head.

The part where she said "no means no" doesn't evoke a rape to you?

Even if it does "evoke a rape" in your mind, do you seriously not understand the difference between "[evoking] a rape" and "[making] a rape allegation"?

If I may. Anyone who makes me what or what not to do with my reproductive organs (or any part of my body) without my legal consent is tantamount to rape. There are caveats but, with an able body and mind there are none.

Nobodyn0se: salvador.hardin: Nobodyn0se: salvador.hardin: You might feel that the circumstances call for that sort of behavior,

Referring accurately to what was going on?

I would think ALL circumstances call for that sort of behavior...

He was trying to touch her vagina without her consent?

Yes. Seriously, have you read ANYTHING about this case?

That's the problem that started this whole little flame war. As I stated in my very Weeners, the Democrats are clearly trying to make political hay out of this. That's fine, but I can't seem to find anyone who can state definitively whether the censure was for using the word Vagina, or for saying "don't touch MY vagina". While censure is indefensible in either case, this particular response is completely disproportional and completely off point if their objection was to the personal attack and not to the use of a biological term.

A figurative accusation of rape may be effective at personalizing the gravity of the law, it may reflect the broader truth that there is a systematic attack on womens' liberty, but it is by no means "referring accurately to what was going on" (unless you have a very interesting dictionary with a pretty wild definition of the word accurate). Its a tactic that some people are going to be okay with and some people are going to have a problem with and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that people react differently to certain tactics.

FloydA: Guidette Frankentits: Thank you FloydA for the TF!

[i105.photobucket.com image 300x384]

You made me laugh.

How does one find out who provided a TF sponsorship? Some farker was kind enough to sponsor me for a month, but I've no clue as to their (Fark) identity.

salvador.hardin: devek: salvador.hardin: I was never clear on this whole thing. Was it that she said the word Vagina? Or was it that she referred to her own personal vagina in respect to another legislator? Because that second one is over the line. Its not "censure" over the line, but it is definitely not appropriate for that chamber.


Context doesn't matter. If you want to pass a law that gets between my doctor and my penis, I am going to talk about my penis and tell you to stay the fark off of it.

/Has a hot Vietnamese doctor

Would you say that to an elderly female coworker in a meeting? Would you say it to a business competitor in front of a client? Context doesn't matter to you because legislative chambers are a foreign place to you anyway. Its a contentious workplace where combative people hash out solutions to divisive issues, and it benefits from having an air of propriety and dignity. If the GOP is attempting to punish the context, they are still in the wrong, but this kind of response isn't at all proportional or even on point. If they really are objecting to the word vagina, then this and more is an appropriate response.

Would I say "vagina" in a meeting or in front of a client? Sure, why not? (or "penis" if it was apropos) And in re the "contentious workplace" thing, that's EXACTLY where some snide remark is going to be said like "I'm flattered you're so interested in my vagina." Congresspeople don't talk like they did back in the Olden Days (if they did even then) and saying "I'm flattered that my Honourable Colleague is so fascinated by discussing the nether regions of femininity."

The way to make the response "proportional" would have been for the Speaker to say, "Madame Congressperson, that remark was uncalled for," and leave it at that. But they didn't, and so they deserve the flak they're getting.

That's an awful play, but still, kudos for those balls.

/wait, what?

Guidette Frankentits: vagina, and other such words of that nature

What a Great Wall of Vagina may look like. (Do I really have to mention it's NSFW?)

salvador.hardin: Nobodyn0se: salvador.hardin: Nobodyn0se: salvador.hardin: You might feel that the circumstances call for that sort of behavior,

Referring accurately to what was going on?

I would think ALL circumstances call for that sort of behavior...

He was trying to touch her vagina without her consent?

Yes. Seriously, have you read ANYTHING about this case?

That's the problem that started this whole little flame war. As I stated in my very Weeners, the Democrats are clearly trying to make political hay out of this. That's fine, but I can't seem to find anyone who can state definitively whether the censure was for using the word Vagina, or for saying "don't touch MY vagina". While censure is indefensible in either case, this particular response is completely disproportional and completely off point if their objection was to the personal attack and not to the use of a biological term.

A figurative accusation of rape may be effective at personalizing the gravity of the law, it may reflect the broader truth that there is a systematic attack on womens' liberty, but it is by no means "referring accurately to what was going on" (unless you have a very interesting dictionary with a pretty wild definition of the word accurate). Its a tactic that some people are going to be okay with and some people are going to have a problem with and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that people react differently to certain tactics.

I bolded the part where you're wrong.

In either case (if it was for saying "vagina" or if it was for her saying "keep your hands off of MY vagina) she was accurately reflecting what was actually going on. The lawmaker she was talking/referring to was ACTUALLY trying to tell her what she could or could not do with her vagina. I know it's hard to believe that someone could be that stupid, but I assure you, Republicans ARE that stupid. Once you get that through your head, you will realize that SHE WAS RIGHT. No matter what "angle" you try to put on the story, every single thing she said was perfectly accurate.

Falcc: salvador.hardin: She should have read the comment she was responding to and not just reacted to her assumptions about anyone who might not jump to the same conclusions as she does due to nuanced differences in their substantially similar world views. No wait, I'm getting turned around. That's you.

I know when you're 12 it seems like everybody sees the world pretty similarly to how you see it, which is why it must be so distressing and confusing for you to find out that so many people disagree with you on this. That isn't how the world works. This particular difference in views isn't a matter of nuance, it's a product of my particular understanding of feminist philosophy, sex-positivism, theories on political discourse, and the values of radical speech and action. It's not just slightly different from "biologically correct words that have had taboo attached to them need to be routed out of formal settings, rape analogies have no place in discourses of power over vaginas, and I can't seem to read any comments related to the other woman who was censured for trying to add an amendment to this law without saying the word vagina at all."

You are a childish and unsophisticated troll and you're acting in defense of something I find abhorrent to an extreme degree. I'd say there's quite of a gulf of world view there.

Stop reading Butler, she's making you hard to understand. All that tortured syntax is really just hiding the fact that she's got nothing to contribute. Read Nussbaum, she's much more concise and clear and has a significant and substantive contributions to the field.

FloydA: Gyrfalcon:
Congresspeople don't talk like they did back in the Olden Days (if they did even then)


They may not have talked as "bluntly" as we do today.


[i105.photobucket.com image 490x368]

Oh we don't have to go that far back. A caning would work just fine. And would be hot.

FloydA: I still don't understand the censure, can any of our resident Republicans explain that?

I'm not a Republican, but I'll take a stab at it. Officially, it was the context of the word vagina, and not the use of the word itself that was the problem. I see two possible interpretations for why the context could be considered inappropriate and an insult to the dignity of the legislative body in question.

The first is that it was inappropriate for her to refer to her personal vagina, as opposed to an abstract vagina and/or all the collective vaginas to be regulated. This ignores two facts. 1) Her vagina would be directly affected by the legislation, and 2) legislators make bills personal all the time in debate. But perhaps because the vagina is a part of the body that is always expected to be covered in pubic, it should be inferred that all discussion of vaginas in public should be limited to the abstract or academic context.

The second possible interpretation is that the chamber did not like her reference to her vagina in conjunction with the phrase "no means no." "No means no" being a well-known anti-rape slogan, the use of it here creates the inference that the members were engaged in a sexual assault on her vagina, as opposed to the mere legislative regulation of her vagina. Such hyperbole is apparently beyond the bounds of the good taste expected to be exercised by state representatives. Furthermore, it really hurt the legislature's feelings. I'm sure the chamber wishes to assure Representative Brown that its interest in her vagina is neither personal nor sexual, and arises only as a result of its duty to legislate for the health and morality of all the vaginas of Michigan.

Biological Ali: salvador.hardin: Nobodyn0se: salvador.hardin: Nobodyn0se: salvador.hardin: You might feel that the circumstances call for that sort of behavior,

Referring accurately to what was going on?

I would think ALL circumstances call for that sort of behavior...

He was trying to touch her vagina without her consent?

Yes. Seriously, have you read ANYTHING about this case?

That's the problem that started this whole little flame war. As I stated in my very Weeners, the Democrats are clearly trying to make political hay out of this. That's fine, but I can't seem to find anyone who can state definitively whether the censure was for using the word Vagina, or for saying "don't touch MY vagina". While censure is indefensible in either case, this particular response is completely disproportional and completely off point if their objection was to the personal attack and not to the use of a biological term.

A figurative accusation of rape may be effective at personalizing the gravity of the law, it may reflect the broader truth that there is a systematic attack on womens' liberty, but it is by no means "referring accurately to what was going on" (unless you have a very interesting dictionary with a pretty wild definition of the word accurate). Its a tactic that some people are going to be okay with and some people are going to have a problem with and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that people react differently to certain tactics.

So you haven't ready anything about the incident, then. Because if you had, you'd know that the problem wasn't simply that "people react differently to certain tactics" or that somebody had some "objection" after the fact, but that she was actually censored while making her statement.

Yes, well, why don't you go ahead and go back and read the comment you are commenting on and see if you can figure out whether that particular phrase is referring to the events that happened or speculating on the response of people to a disproportional response to the censure. Go ahead. I'm not giving you any hints.

quizzical:

The second possible interpretation is that the chamber did not like her reference to her vagina in conjunction with the phrase "no means no." "No means no" being a well-known anti-rape slogan, the use of it here creates the inference that the members were engaged in a sexual assault on her vagina, as opposed to the mere legislative regulation of her vagina. Such hyperbole is apparently beyond the bounds of the good taste expected to be exercised by state representatives. Furthermore, it really hurt the legislature's feelings. I'm sure the chamber wishes to assure Representative Brown that its interest in her vagina is neither personal nor sexual, and arises only as a result of its duty to legislate for the health and morality of all the vaginas of Michigan.

If they don't want to be accused of controlling her vagina without her consent, maybe they shouldn't try and control her vagina without her consent.

Just a thought...

FloydA: Gyrfalcon:
Congresspeople don't talk like they did back in the Olden Days (if they did even then)


They may not have talked as "bluntly" as we do today.


[i105.photobucket.com image 490x368]

Well, yeah. But that wasn't on the floor of Congress. ;)

salvador.hardin: Falcc: salvador.hardin: She should have read the comment she was responding to and not just reacted to her assumptions about anyone who might not jump to the same conclusions as she does due to nuanced differences in their substantially similar world views. No wait, I'm getting turned around. That's you.

I know when you're 12 it seems like everybody sees the world pretty similarly to how you see it, which is why it must be so distressing and confusing for you to find out that so many people disagree with you on this. That isn't how the world works. This particular difference in views isn't a matter of nuance, it's a product of my particular understanding of feminist philosophy, sex-positivism, theories on political discourse, and the values of radical speech and action. It's not just slightly different from "biologically correct words that have had taboo attached to them need to be routed out of formal settings, rape analogies have no place in discourses of power over vaginas, and I can't seem to read any comments related to the other woman who was censured for trying to add an amendment to this law without saying the word vagina at all."

You are a childish and unsophisticated troll and you're acting in defense of something I find abhorrent to an extreme degree. I'd say there's quite of a gulf of world view there.

Stop reading Butler, she's making you hard to understand. All that tortured syntax is really just hiding the fact that she's got nothing to contribute. Read Nussbaum, she's much more concise and clear and has a significant and substantive contributions to the field.

I don't see what's hard to understand about an assault on women's rights deserving to be called out. I also don't see what's hard to understand about the fact that vagina is a biological term and should be appropriate in a discussion about a medical procedure's legality. I especially don't see any replies from you about the fact that another representative was censured despite not saying vagina, as evidence that this has nothing to do with language and everything to do with silencing women. If you find simple statements like these to be as incomprehensible as Judith Butler then I'm not convinced you're actually reading them.

Republicans, Get In My Vagina!

You damn right, I'll be up in Kate Beckinsale Vagina.

Biological Ali: salvador.hardin: Nobodyn0se: salvador.hardin: You might feel that the circumstances call for that sort of behavior,

Referring accurately to what was going on?

I would think ALL circumstances call for that sort of behavior...

He was trying to touch her vagina without her consent?

I seriously suggest you look up her actual quote. In fact, I think I'll post it here: "And, finally, Mr. Speaker - I'm flattered that you're so interested in my vagina, but no means no."

So even if we go by the hyper-literal interpretations you've been keen to apply in this thread, her statement would still be strictly accurate, as politicians like that do have an interest in her (and every other woman's) vagina, as evidenced by the kinds of laws they're trying to pass.

Sorry, I remembered it as "keep your hands off my vagina" or something similar. Of course, unless you would have a problem with that particular phrase and not with the one she said, then the error isn't really relevant. It also doesn't change the fact that it makes a world of difference whether this censure was for the use of the word Vagina (which is the presumption of this response), and whether the censure was for its reference to another legislature and her vagina. One more time, the distinction does not make the censure more defensible (well, maybe just a little bit), but it certainly affects whether this response (which is clearly based on the presumption that the problem is with the use of the word vagina), is proportional.

Lets try thinking of this in another way. Pretend you are in management wherever you work and a female subordinate comes to you and complains that another coworker (a coworker who recently lost a promotion because of her ruthless office politicking) approached her and said "I know you are interested in my penis." Would you laugh her out of your office and tell them her she needs to be thick skinned, or would you call HR.

salvador.hardin:
Lets try thinking of this in another way. Pretend you are in management wherever you work and a female subordinate comes to you and complains that another coworker (a coworker who recently lost a promotion because of her ruthless office politicking) approached her and said "I know you are interested in my penis." Would you laugh her out of your office and tell them her she needs to be thick skinned, or would you call HR.

It depends, was she trying to pass laws involving the man's penis?

ox45tallboy: salvador.hardin: Sorry, I remembered it as "keep your hands off my vagina" or something similar. Of course, unless you would have a problem with that particular phrase and not with the one she said, then the error isn't really relevant. It also doesn't change the fact that it makes a world of difference whether this censure was for the use of the word Vagina (which is the presumption of this response), and whether the censure was for its reference to another legislature and her vagina. One more time, the distinction does not make the censure more defensible (well, maybe just a little bit), but it certainly affects whether this response (which is clearly based on the presumption that the problem is with the use of the word vagina), is proportional.

Lets try thinking of this in another way. Pretend you are in management wherever you work and a female subordinate comes to you and complains that another coworker (a coworker who recently lost a promotion because of her ruthless office politicking) approached her and said "I know you are interested in my penis." Would you laugh her out of your office and tell them her she needs to be thick skinned, or would you call HR.

Did she initiate the conversation by attempting to pass mandatory circumcisions for all men covered by the company health plan?

1. No, she didn't. She did some very unfair things to him that cost him a promotion, he said "I know you are interested in my penis." Do you address the possibility that it is sexual harassment or do you laugh her out of your office and say good for him, you deserved it?

2. Yes she did. She attempted to change the company's health care plan to require mandatory circumcisions, then he said to her "I know you are interested in my penis." Do you address the possibility that it is sexual harassment or do you laugh her out of your office and say good for him, you deserved it?

salvador.hardin:

1. No, she didn't. She did some very unfair things to him that cost him a promotion, he said "I know you are interested in my penis." Do you address the possibility that it is sexual harassment or do you laugh her out of your office and say good for him, you deserved it?

2. Yes she did. She attempted to change the company's health care plan to require mandatory circumcisions, then he said to her "I know you are interested in my penis." Do you address the possibility that it is sexual harassment or do you laugh her out of your office and say good for him, you deserved it?

1. Then it's a terrible analogy and my response is moot.

2. Then I would ask her about the context. If the context is similar to that in the situation being discussed, I would tell her that the man was merely being accurate, and she is complaining about nothing. She is interested in his penis, and the context shows that he was being accurate and honest in his "accusations."

Login: BarkingUnicorn [TotalFark]
Fark account number: 760781
Account created: 2012-03-04 23:18:14
Submitted links approved: 32

What the actual fark. 32 links approved in 3 months?

WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR /bauer

salvador.hardin: devek: salvador.hardin: I was never clear on this whole thing. Was it that she said the word Vagina? Or was it that she referred to her own personal vagina in respect to another legislator? Because that second one is over the line. Its not "censure" over the line, but it is definitely not appropriate for that chamber.


Context doesn't matter. If you want to pass a law that gets between my doctor and my penis, I am going to talk about my penis and tell you to stay the fark off of it.

/Has a hot Vietnamese doctor

Would you say that to an elderly female coworker in a meeting? Would you say it to a business competitor in front of a client? Context doesn't matter to you because legislative chambers are a foreign place to you anyway. Its a contentious workplace where combative people hash out solutions to divisive issues, and it benefits from having an air of propriety and dignity. If the GOP is attempting to punish the context, they are still in the wrong, but this kind of response isn't at all proportional or even on point. If they really are objecting to the word vagina, then this and more is an appropriate response.

If the elderly female coworker is trying to pass laws to get between your doctor and your penis, you should damned well say it in front of your elderly coworker. If your coworker is too delicate to say the word "penis," she should not be legislating your penis. This is the context, and the word is 100% appropriate.

sleeps in trees: I fark, I have a vagina, labia, and if you are good at what you do a clitoris.

How does the man's performance determine whether or not you have a clitoris?

Biological Ali: salvador.hardin: Sorry, I remembered it as "keep your hands off my vagina" or something similar. Of course, unless you would have a problem with that particular phrase and not with the one she said, then the error isn't really relevant. It also doesn't change the fact that it makes a world of difference whether this censure was for the use of the word Vagina (which is the presumption of this response), and whether the censure was for its reference to another legislature and her vagina. One more time, the distinction does not make the censure more defensible (well, maybe just a little bit), but it certainly affects whether this response (which is clearly based on the presumption that the problem is with the use of the word vagina), is proportional.

What people have been trying to get through to you (and others) is that the context in American politics, where politicians can make "figurative allegations of theft" while talking about taxes or "figurative allegations of murder" while talking about abortion without fear of being officially punished, the only sensible explanation is that she was punished for the language being used. This becomes all the more clear when male politicians say things like "Oh, I wouldn't say what she said in front of women or in mixed company", because they clearly couldn't be referring to the argumentative premise of their vaginas being violated - they're articulating a visceral response to the language itself. There just isn't any room to be playing devil's advocate here.


I'm not playing Devil's advocate. All I can find from the GOP are a few quotes from people who aren't in leadership saying "its not the word vagina" and the second censure which clearly isn't about the word vagina since the representative didn't use the word.

If there isn't some sort of evidence that this censure was based on the word vagina (your comment is the first to actually offer any evidence that it is), then its intellectually dishonest to premise their response to the censure on the idea that it was about the word, and it will backfire if the GOP finds a way to succinctly answer that the censure was about the context of the statement. Politics is a full contact sport, so there's no unbroken decorum for her to violate, no universal rules of propriety for her to obey that would make the censure appropriate. However, there are plenty of people who will find that the statement makes them uncomfortable because that is what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to make the GOP feel uncomfortable and it is supposed to be hostile to them, and people will find it to be over their personal line of propriety. And so when Brown screams "vagina isn't a bad word!" and the GOP responds "we love the word vagina, we just don't think its appropriate to accuse us of rape in legislative chambers", the GOP is going to come off as the reasonable and responsible adults. And that's sad.

I do really like your comment about figurative theft and figurative murder. But sex is different. And even if you don't agree that sex IS different, you have to know that sex PLAYS different in the media.


Lets try thinking of this in another way. Pretend you are in management wherever you work and a female subordinate comes to you and complains that another coworker (a coworker who recently lost a promotion because of her ruthless office politicking) approached her and said "I know you are interested in my penis." Would you laugh her out of your office and tell them her she needs to be thick skinned, or would you call HR.

Never make analogies again.

A sexualized comment that's intended to create a hostile work environment and make someone feel uncomfortable is sexual harassment. It isn't justified by "bad" behavior by the victim. It can't be used as a defensive weapon. When the GOP starts calling her comment sexual harassment its not going to be nearly as easy to dismiss the analogy.

DeaH: salvador.hardin: devek: salvador.hardin: I was never clear on this whole thing. Was it that she said the word Vagina? Or was it that she referred to her own personal vagina in respect to another legislator? Because that second one is over the line. Its not "censure" over the line, but it is definitely not appropriate for that chamber.


Context doesn't matter. If you want to pass a law that gets between my doctor and my penis, I am going to talk about my penis and tell you to stay the fark off of it.

/Has a hot Vietnamese doctor

Would you say that to an elderly female coworker in a meeting? Would you say it to a business competitor in front of a client? Context doesn't matter to you because legislative chambers are a foreign place to you anyway. Its a contentious workplace where combative people hash out solutions to divisive issues, and it benefits from having an air of propriety and dignity. If the GOP is attempting to punish the context, they are still in the wrong, but this kind of response isn't at all proportional or even on point. If they really are objecting to the word vagina, then this and more is an appropriate response.

If the elderly female coworker is trying to pass laws to get between your doctor and your penis, you should damned well say it in front of your elderly coworker. If your coworker is too delicate to say the word "penis," she should not be legislating your penis. This is the context, and the word is 100% appropriate.

So that's another one for context DOES matter. Thanks.

salvador.hardin:
I'm not playing Devil's advocate. All I can find from the GOP are a few quotes from people who aren't in leadership saying "its not the word vagina" and the second censure which clearly isn't about the word vagina since the representative didn't use the word.

If there isn't some sort of evidence that this censure was based on the word vagina (your comment is the first to actually offer any evidence that it is), then its intellectually dishonest to premi ...

You are totally missing the point. It isn't sexual harassment if you're defending yourself from someone trying to do something to your genitals.

If I started a conversation with my penis, I would be in the wrong.. but that isn't what happened here!

Trust me, if the republicans pulled the shiat they are in my workplace they would be terminated immediately. Stop making analogies that leave out the important part of the entire issue, they are wrong to be debating this issue in the first place. You just don't get it and probably never will.

salvador.hardin: A sexualized comment that's intended to create a hostile work environment and make someone feel uncomfortable is sexual harassment.

Yes, that's what we've been saying this WHOLE FREAKING TIME. And when the woman said "stop it" to the person sexually harassing her, SHE was the one that got reprimanded for it.

THAT IS NOT ETHICAL.

ox45tallboy: The Why Not Guy: No, we cannot. People say inappropriate things all the time on the floors of legislative halls, and they are seldom if ever punished for it. So one of two things is true:



"Go f*ck yourself!"

Look. I'd like to. But I'm afraid that while I'm off doing that, you'll make it illegal as well!