|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 12 2019 12:09 NewSunshine wrote:
All I know is that, as a man who requires more food for the sake of argument, if the price of all the food at my local Wal-Mart stayed the same, but now every single item had 25% less food in it, I'd be fucking pissed. And that's kinda where this started.
Uh what? This makes no sense. As the hypothetical man in this thought experiment that’s already effectively the case. You just don’t notice it because its not a single item like “tampons” that you can point to.
|
On May 12 2019 12:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 12:09 NewSunshine wrote:
All I know is that, as a man who requires more food for the sake of argument, if the price of all the food at my local Wal-Mart stayed the same, but now every single item had 25% less food in it, I'd be fucking pissed. And that's kinda where this started. Uh what? This makes no sense. As the hypothetical man in this thought experiment that’s already effectively the case. You just don’t notice it because its not a single item like “tampons” that you can point to.
No, my increased food consumption is the equal to the original tampons, in this analog. I'm referring to what started the conversation-now-argument, where the pack of tampons costs the same but now has less of them, and the obvious frustration therein. It would be similar if all the food I purchased now contains less than it did originally.
|
I agree. I'd probably switch brands.
|
What if you couldn't? What if you chose that brand for a good reason before, or what if all the other brands were doing something similar?
|
Then maybe it's price collusion and the feds should look into antitrust lawsuits.
|
The general point is that it sucks ass, and yeah, there are fuckers who are putting women over a barrel and need to get dealt with. That's kinda the point. It's not just with the tampon thing, but that's sure not fun.
|
On May 12 2019 11:43 KwarK wrote:
Glasses should be an easy one. The societal benefit from having people who can see massively outweighs the cost of glasses. Triply so for children. I can't even imagine how many kids there are out there that can't properly see the board at school, but because their parents cannot afford eye tests or glasses, they don't know about their child's sight issues. I know there already exist some programs to address this issue, but it really should just be a universal thing in most developed countries.
It should be built into the education system and be seen as an essential program. No kid should be unable to do their best at school just because their parents can't afford glasses.
|
I don't see a reason for me to pay for a middle class woman's tampons/pads lol.
I would be okay with "tampon stamps" (like food stamps) though for those who are struggling. Maybe a minor increase in EBT reimbursement for women lol.
|
|
|
On May 12 2019 12:04 IgnE wrote:
Like let’s consider a man and a woman who get all their food from the local Walmart. They live an ascetic, sober life of healthy subsistence. The woman’s bill has to include $5-10 of tampons every month. Are you really going to tell me that the woman’s monthly food/tampon expenditures are $5-10 more every month and that that counts as a “woman tax”? That seems absurd to me. That’s like an extra box of cereal and a chicken breast.
The volume doesn't actually matter, though, nor the prices. It isn't a competition of "It costs 36.75 units of currency a day for a man to survive. and women 32.25 units of currency a day" because there are so many confounding variables to that data that make it all but wholly meaningless.
People are simply pointing to the idea that women having to pay for a thing that they -need- and they only need it for the simple reason of having a menstruation cycle. There's no "And they deserve this because men get X" or any sort of comparative, really. It's just "Hey, this should be a basic human right and not an extra expense". It isn't a question of parity.
There's a greater conversation to have about the actual concept of a "woman tax", but tbh I'm not that informed on the subject. I'm just rejecting the defenses along the lines of "Well men consume more calories" and "some people need glasses" because it doesn't actually move anything forward.
|
On May 12 2019 13:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses. We do that here, every child in kindergarten gets to see a eye doctor who prescribes them glasses and they get a free pair. And yes kindergarten is also tax supported. http://www.optometrists.ab.ca/@/AAO/ESEL
Yup! That was one of the programs I was thinking of when I made my post. It's just common sense. It enables children to learn.
|
|
|
On May 12 2019 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 12:04 IgnE wrote:
Like let’s consider a man and a woman who get all their food from the local Walmart. They live an ascetic, sober life of healthy subsistence. The woman’s bill has to include $5-10 of tampons every month. Are you really going to tell me that the woman’s monthly food/tampon expenditures are $5-10 more every month and that that counts as a “woman tax”? That seems absurd to me. That’s like an extra box of cereal and a chicken breast. The volume doesn't actually matter, though, nor the prices. It isn't a competition of "It costs 36.75 units of currency a day for a man to survive. and women 32.25 units of currency a day" because there are so many confounding variables to that data that make it all but wholly meaningless. People are simply pointing to the idea that women having to pay for a thing that they -need- and they only need it for the simple reason of having a menstruation cycle. There's no "And they deserve this because men get X" or any sort of comparative, really. It's just "Hey, this should be a basic human right and not an extra expense". It isn't a question of parity. There's a greater conversation to have about the actual concept of a "woman tax", but tbh I'm not that informed on the subject. I'm just rejecting the defenses along the lines of "Well men consume more calories" and "some people need glasses" because it doesn't actually move anything forward.
You have two sentences right next to each other that are contradictory. What exactly do you mean by "extra expense"? Extra in what sense? What makes that an "extra expense" and not food, eyeglasses, toilet paper, insulin, or any other basic human good that people need? You mean it precisely in the comparative sense.
|
I'm pretty sure someone who thinks tampons are a necessity for most women and doesnt think they ought to be considered a luxury would have the same opinion of glasses.
We already subsidize food for those who can afford it (at least as far as things like food stamps go), I got my first pair of glasses free because my school paid for it after I had an eye exam.
Though to be honest I'm not sure what you're even trying to get at, it feels more like an issue with the words being chosen rather than the idea of what it's fine to consider a luxury and what's a necessity and how that works out in society.
|
On May 12 2019 14:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On May 12 2019 12:04 IgnE wrote:
Like let’s consider a man and a woman who get all their food from the local Walmart. They live an ascetic, sober life of healthy subsistence. The woman’s bill has to include $5-10 of tampons every month. Are you really going to tell me that the woman’s monthly food/tampon expenditures are $5-10 more every month and that that counts as a “woman tax”? That seems absurd to me. That’s like an extra box of cereal and a chicken breast. The volume doesn't actually matter, though, nor the prices. It isn't a competition of "It costs 36.75 units of currency a day for a man to survive. and women 32.25 units of currency a day" because there are so many confounding variables to that data that make it all but wholly meaningless. People are simply pointing to the idea that women having to pay for a thing that they -need- and they only need it for the simple reason of having a menstruation cycle. There's no "And they deserve this because men get X" or any sort of comparative, really. It's just "Hey, this should be a basic human right and not an extra expense". It isn't a question of parity. There's a greater conversation to have about the actual concept of a "woman tax", but tbh I'm not that informed on the subject. I'm just rejecting the defenses along the lines of "Well men consume more calories" and "some people need glasses" because it doesn't actually move anything forward. You have two sentences right next to each other that are contradictory. What exactly do you mean by "extra expense"? Extra in what sense? What makes that an "extra expense" and not food, eyeglasses, toilet paper, insulin, or any other basic human good that people need? You mean it precisely in the comparative sense.
I in no way implied that eyeglasses, food, toilet paper, insulin or any other basic good are or are not extra expenses.
I did not and am not making a comparison between the necessity of tampons and the necessity of food.
I do not mean it in the comparative sense.
It is an extra expense in the sense that it is something one gender has to pay for for simple fact of being that gender, and that is a very clean and obvious thing to point to that is in no way more complicated than its simple stated self. It is not a question of gender imbalance and tampons being a sign of how awful men are, it is simply "Hey, only this one gender has to pay for this thing that this one gender needs as a basic human good. We can address that."
Not "We can address that in lieu of addressing other things."
Not "We're going to address this first because it is most important"
You say yourself you wouldn't vote against tampons free, so I'm having a hard time seeing your opposition as anything other than an emotionally charged reaction to the concept of change, leading into strawmanning.
|
On May 12 2019 14:04 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 13:41 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses. We do that here, every child in kindergarten gets to see a eye doctor who prescribes them glasses and they get a free pair. And yes kindergarten is also tax supported. http://www.optometrists.ab.ca/@/AAO/ESEL Yup! That was one of the programs I was thinking of when I made my post. It's just common sense. It enables children to learn.
I don't know how it is for good insurance policies here, but in my shitty one I had last year I had 0 vision coverage for myself, but could get vision care for my hypothetical minor offspring.
|
On May 12 2019 15:51 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 14:56 IgnE wrote:On May 12 2019 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On May 12 2019 12:04 IgnE wrote:
Like let’s consider a man and a woman who get all their food from the local Walmart. They live an ascetic, sober life of healthy subsistence. The woman’s bill has to include $5-10 of tampons every month. Are you really going to tell me that the woman’s monthly food/tampon expenditures are $5-10 more every month and that that counts as a “woman tax”? That seems absurd to me. That’s like an extra box of cereal and a chicken breast. The volume doesn't actually matter, though, nor the prices. It isn't a competition of "It costs 36.75 units of currency a day for a man to survive. and women 32.25 units of currency a day" because there are so many confounding variables to that data that make it all but wholly meaningless. People are simply pointing to the idea that women having to pay for a thing that they -need- and they only need it for the simple reason of having a menstruation cycle. There's no "And they deserve this because men get X" or any sort of comparative, really. It's just "Hey, this should be a basic human right and not an extra expense". It isn't a question of parity. There's a greater conversation to have about the actual concept of a "woman tax", but tbh I'm not that informed on the subject. I'm just rejecting the defenses along the lines of "Well men consume more calories" and "some people need glasses" because it doesn't actually move anything forward. You have two sentences right next to each other that are contradictory. What exactly do you mean by "extra expense"? Extra in what sense? What makes that an "extra expense" and not food, eyeglasses, toilet paper, insulin, or any other basic human good that people need? You mean it precisely in the comparative sense. I in no way implied that eyeglasses, food, toilet paper, insulin or any other basic good are or are not extra expenses. I did not and am not making a comparison between the necessity of tampons and the necessity of food. I do not mean it in the comparative sense. It is an extra expense in the sense that it is something one gender has to pay for for simple fact of being that gender, and that is a very clean and obvious thing to point to that is in no way more complicated than its simple stated self. It is not a question of gender imbalance and tampons being a sign of how awful men are, it is simply "Hey, only this one gender has to pay for this thing that this one gender needs as a basic human good. We can address that." Not "We can address that in lieu of addressing other things." Not "We're going to address this first because it is most important" You say yourself you wouldn't vote against tampons free, so I'm having a hard time seeing your opposition as anything other than an emotionally charged reaction to the concept of change, leading into strawmanning.
"Extra" is always comparative. It's extra compared to something else. You can't not mean it in the comparative sense. The only relevant question is compared to what. Here it's one gender to another. And my question is why should I give a fuck about gender? Why would I spend money making tampons free for everyone when I could spend my money helping people who don't have food?
But maybe you are just saying that poor people should have access to tampons. I'm sure most people here would agree. On the other hand you are the one who referred to paying for tampons as a "tax" on women.
|
On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses.
I'm not entirely sure if that's supposed to sound outrageous, so apologies if i'm experiencing a woosh currently - but yeah. Everyone who needs them should get them for free. In fact, does get them for free in the vast majority of western countries.
|
On May 12 2019 12:04 IgnE wrote:
Like let’s consider a man and a woman who get all their food from the local Walmart. They live an ascetic, sober life of healthy subsistence. The woman’s bill has to include $5-10 of tampons every month. Are you really going to tell me that the woman’s monthly food/tampon expenditures are $5-10 more every month and that that counts as a “woman tax”? That seems absurd to me. That’s like an extra box of cereal and a chicken breast.
For a ten bucks hypothesis and, say 80 million women concerned, we are talking of 10 billion dollars spent every year by american women. It’s hard to comprehend how 120 dollars a year is a small sum for you. It’s REALLY a lot for many, many people.
|
On May 12 2019 11:26 IgnE wrote:
How about eyeglasses? Everyone who needs them should get free eyeglasses.
Welcome to Europe. Where things you could only imagine actually exist.
I find your question why such basic needs should be subject to competition, especially quality food, very important.
The way you portrayed /I perceived your opinion via the last couple of posts of yours is rather questionable though. I am under the impression that you question giving out free period utility items because food, of which men in your words need more of than women, isn't free albeit being a super basic need.
You forego, might it just be for arguments sake, supporting a women's rights question in lieu of posing a more encompassing question.
Funnily though this line of argument is often used to stifle any progress, especially in case of women's rights, especially by men who feel undervalued by that which basically leads to no change and no improvement at all.
Not saying you're supporting that sentiment, but I still want to point out that your life of reasoning is used to suppress incremental change on the one hand and in the other make a general question of emancipation to a US vs THEM question. Which is highly detrimental to the political discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
