this post was submitted on
664 points (81% like it)
856 up votes 192 down votes

TwoXChromosomes

unsubscribe104,404 readers

304 users here now

Welcome to TwoXChromosomes, a subreddit for thoughtful content - serious or silly - related to gender, and intended for womens' perspectives.

Charity campaigns (what's this?)

She's the First

Thoughtful, Meaningful Content

Posts are moderated for content according to the following guidelines:

  1. Respect: No hatred, bigotry, assholery, utter idiocy, misogyny, misandry, transphobia, homophobia, or otherwise disrespectful commentary. Please follow reddiquette.

  2. Equanimity: No drama-inducing crossposting of content found in other subreddits. Likewise, posts found to direct odious influxes here may be removed.

  3. Grace: No tactless posts generalising gender. We are a welcoming community. Rights of all genders are supported here.

  4. Relevance: Please submit content that is relevant to our experiences as women, for women, or about women.

  5. Images: No memes or rage comics; Please direct those to /r/TrollXChromosomes. All personal stories and pictures are welcome within self posts; the only exception is on Image-Fest Friday.

Please read our FAQ for more details

View 2XC + TrollX combined!

Related subreddits

/r/FancyFollicles /r/femalefashionadvice
/r/MakeupAddiction /r/RedditLaqueristas
/r/BodyAcceptance /r/Fashion
/r/xxfitness /r/lookoftheday
/r/2XLookbook /r/TrollXChromosomes
/r/Mommit /r/BabyBumps
/r/infertility /r/adoption
/r/childfree /r/birthcontrol
/r/TryingForABaby /r/actuallesbians
/r/ainbow /r/lesbianfashionadvice
/r/feminism /r/feminisms
/r/LadiesofScience /r/women
/r/blackgirls /r/asiantwoX
/r/AskWomen /r/EntWives
/r/2xLite /r/femmit
/r/LadyBoners /r/ladyladyboners
/r/GirlGamers /r/lezsaysmoargaming
/r/ProjectUnbreakable /r/PCOS
/r/ABraThatFits /r/TwoXSex
/r/bigboobproblems /r/womenrock

Resources

Abortion support Assault & DV Resources

#reddit-twoxchromosomes on irc.freenode.net

created by HiFructoseCornFecesa community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 55 comments

[–]undercurrents 86 points87 points ago

The full original clip from the Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

The bill is meant to be satirical, it was in response to the Oklahoma personhood bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/oklahoma-senator-constance-johnson-satirical-amendment-ejaculation_n_1268768.html

[–]Raddpixie 48 points49 points ago

Makes me think of legally blonde.
" and for that matter any masabatory emissions where his sperm was clearly not seeking an egg could be termed reckless abandonment. "

[–]According_To_Me 29 points30 points ago

This was one of the funniest segments The Daily Show has ever done. Constance Johnson is amazing.

[–]SoulMasterKaze 47 points48 points ago

It's quite interesting when you subject the issue to role-reversal parody, isn't it?

/sociologist

[–]tuba_man 6 points7 points ago

Now if only the targets of that role-reversal would understand the point of it...

[–]chrom_ed 30 points31 points ago

Well, sort of. It's not a very good reversal analogy, and i doubt it brought a new viewpoint to many people. I think the people who push for anti-birth control are knowingly hypocritical, or don't see men and women as equal so there can't be an analogy in their eyes.

It is an amusing picture though.

[–]Achillesbellybutton 11 points12 points ago

It wasn't perfect in wanting some sort of equivalent procedure but there is no true equivalent. Where Republicans are trying to protect 'sanctity of life' women are being told that you can't have sex unless it's for reproductive purposes. That's exactly what restricting a man's ability to 'deposit sperm' would do to him in a world where women aren't allowed contraception.

[–]tameimpalea 2 points3 points ago

Where Republicans are trying to protect 'sanctity of life, women are being told you can't have sex unless it's for reproductive purposes.

I hope when you say "Republicans" you mean "fringe Republicans", because that isn't a widely held belief by the party at all. When you see the "attack" on birth control, most fully accept it, but don't want the government to pay for it. That's the problem for most of them, not that women are having sex without the intent to reproduce. You shouldn't paint the whole picture with one color.

[–]Achillesbellybutton 2 points3 points ago

I guess that is what I mean but I do admit it reluctantly because people are informed quite frequently by the World around them (including the media) and the wealth which back Republican rhetoric is certainly backed by huge corporations which seek less regulations so they can make more money and have higher profit margins, it also seems to tie a lot into somekind of religious morality that we should all have.

Basically, I understand very well that not every republican is a nut job but the media that informs these people, the media that's by republicans and for republicans is and has been for quite a while trying to teach them how to be good little subservient followers of the rich, taught to derail important arguments that really need solutions and definitions and taught to glorify wealth to the few and poverty for the many.

[–]SoulMasterKaze 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, I agree that it wasn't a perfect reversal, but at least it's in the right general ballpark.

[–]chrom_ed 4 points5 points ago

Yeah it's good enough to make the point but... I just found this in another thread! (referring to the only top level comment as of now.)

http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/v39bv/new_statesman_michigan_democrat_barred_from_state/

[–]error1954 1 point2 points ago

There was this website I knew of a while back, that would take all the gendered words and switch them to expose cultural expectations. If anyone knows what I'm talking about feel free to link it, but it was pretty cool to go onto any news website and use it.

[–]blahblah010 1 point2 points ago

I think the point he is trying to make in his opposition to this (satirical) bill, is that a man's sperm does not constitute a life on it's own - whereas, when a woman is pregnant, she has a life in her that she alone is reponsible for. I am very pro-choice and heavily liberal but I don't see how this isn't a legitimate point of concern that completely invalidates these sorts of analogous comparisons; I honestly think the Republican Party being accused of being anti-woman is ridiculous taken prima facie, because inherently a pregnant woman is carrying a child when her egg is fertilized, regardless of whether she intends to carry it to term or not.

[–]Jess_than_three 4 points5 points ago

Well, he makes the case that a sperm cell (to paraphrase) can't grow into a person on its own - and that's true. It's also true of embryos, which is why the whole ninth-months-of-gestation thing happens.

I also think that "inherently a pregnant woman is carrying a child when her egg is fertilized" is a gross overstatement of the case. A pregnant woman is carrying a tiny ball of cells with the capacity to become a child when her egg is fertilized, yes. But "tiny ball of cells" and "child" are not the same thing.

[–]Damaband41 -3 points-2 points ago

It's not quite the same thing... In this instance, there is no female egg which could produce a child and result in 18 years of child support and a vastly affected life...

[–]Jess_than_three 5 points6 points ago

In this instance, there is no female egg which could produce a child and result in 18 years of child support and a vastly affected life...

If that was his issue, you'd really think he ought to be pro-choice.

Hey, that being the case, can we argue that the GOP is equally waging a war on men's rights? I'm being kind of serious here. /r/mensrights for example hates the idea of being "forced" to pay child support, right? You outlaw abortion, and there are going to be a lot more men in that position. You make birth control harder to get - same outcome.

[–]UltravioletLemon 6 points7 points ago

Canadian here - are there actually bills that have the potential to be passed to literally ban birth control? I have heard/read a bit about it, but it always seemed like it was just right-wing extremists. Is this something that has a real possibility to happen in the States?

[–]carela 2 points3 points ago

Hopefully not, but realistically, yes, in some states with higher conservative populations.

[–]juliet1 3 points4 points ago

Source?

The closest I've heard are debates about whether the government should require insurance companies to cover birth control, but that's an issue of who pays for it, not a ban on birth control medication itself.

[–]carela 2 points3 points ago

Well the "personhood bill" that the image in this post is referring to (someone posted a link about it in the comments above) would give a zygote the same rights as a person and therefore, forbid hormonal birth control, which blocks implantation. I can't say how likely it is to pass but it's not the first and won't be the last bill regarding personhood and therefore birth control

[–]juliet1 1 point2 points ago

I did some Googling and if we're talking about the same thing, then this law has already passed! This is ridiculous.

[–]nofelix 1 point2 points ago

Oklahoma Personhood Measure Struck Down By Supreme Court. This is from 30th April this year and I don't see any more recent news about it. The fact it got that far is shocking though.

[–]juliet1 0 points1 point ago

That's a relief.

[–]rude-jude 6 points7 points ago

Best Senator Ever! I remember watching this interview and seeing the genius that was the bill she spoke of.

[–]scruffy01 14 points15 points ago

Not that I agree, but I can see where he is coming from.

With abortions its about the baby, not mama's body. They count that baby as a person and most pro-choice usually don't.

They don't count the sperm as a baby, so the rights issue is with the men, not with the baby.

Once again, not saying I agree, I just want to explain their side a little bit. You can't fight the good fight without knowing thy enemy.

[–]IAmTheMittenMan 83 points84 points ago

If I recall correctly, this proposition was against the war on birth control, not abortion - it was the people saying that taking BC is killing babies.

[–]gl0bals0j0urner 16 points17 points ago

Exactly. The "personhood" amendment outlaws hormonal birth control, and certain types of fertility treatments (IVF), not just abortion.

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points ago

It's the exact same idea, starting a little earlier -- instead of a clump of cells being a "person", it's a single cell.

Hormonal birth control, in a small number of cases, fails to prevent the creation of an inseminated egg (probably the way it works in the vast majority of cases), but does prevent that egg from implanting in the uterine lining.

[–]Jess_than_three 2 points3 points ago

With abortions its about the baby, not mama's body. They count that baby as a person and most pro-choice usually don't.

They don't count the sperm as a baby, so the rights issue is with the men, not with the baby.

"They" (pro-life people) count "the baby" (i.e. a zygote/embryo/fetus) as being a person, whereas most pro-choice people do not.

"They" (pro-life people) don't count sperm as being a person, whereas Senator Johnson was arguing that in fact it should be counted that way.

It is not reasonable to only accept the definitions of pro-lifers in each case.

[–]nofelix 2 points3 points ago

Nobody is aborting babies. Please don't use pro-lifers' inaccurate terms.

[–]Chilly73 1 point2 points ago

I don't know where she's from, but I want her for President!

[–]HolyFlyingPenguins 0 points1 point ago

She's from Oklahoma.

[–]Chilly73 0 points1 point ago

She's still awesome!

[–]scratchnatural 0 points1 point ago

I'm confused. What is the picture trying to convey? It seems rather illogical to me to regulate what a man does with his sperm.

[–]esailla 45 points46 points ago

It's to show the hypocrisy in outlawing something like birth control for women.

[–]TweeSpam 0 points1 point ago

outlawing something like birth control for women

I'm not from the states, but can you post some links to legislation (proposed?) that will ban contraception?

[–]carela 28 points29 points ago

It's showing a male senator's reaction to a satirical bill that regulates non-procreative sexual activity in men. If it seems illogical, it's because it is- it was meant to show how ridiculous the bills regulating women's health and bodies are.

[–]DaquIrish 14 points15 points ago

In the original context (r/atheism), Constance Johnson (top panel) is trying to outlaw anything other than heteronormative sexual intercourse resulting in the depositing of EJACULATE in the VAGINA of a woman. In the bottom panel, Ralph Shortpants is pointing out this is kinda fucked up because it's an enormous imposition on a man's rights and ergo incognito sums it's a poor argument for being a bigoted piece of shit opposed to homosexuality.

OP presumably submitted it to point out that this type of circumstance already exists for women - having the government tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Although OP probably could have worded it better (preferably with more than two words) to illustrate that this was their intent.

[–]scratchnatural 0 points1 point ago

I see. Interesting. How on earth would one regulate that? Since when is it the government's job to tells what I can and can not do sexually as a consenting adult? This whole situation infuriates me. If you don't want someone regulating what you do during your private time why would you do that to anyone else?

[–]carela 24 points25 points ago

Constance Johnson didn't introduce it intending that it ever actually be regulated, lol. She made the amendment to make a point, knowing it would never go through.

[–]scratchnatural 0 points1 point ago

Ohhhhh! Hehe! I didn't know.

[–]TorchicBlaziken 0 points1 point ago

I don't see what this had to do with atheism.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]kalamawho 17 points18 points ago

WHOOOOSH