Is it mislabeled and just a blog for liberal democratic Dakota Women? And what are “women’s issues?”
After my post on Republican Legislator Shantel Krebs and her take on the year in review, I was kind of surprised that the “blog of issues affecting women in South Dakota” a.k.a. Dakota Women, whom I read and index on the left, took after her with such a pointed stick:
Yesterday’s Argus article and the discussion about it over at War College inspired a little something…
Do you like your shoes with a side of women-hating politics? Neither do I. Turns out that’s exactly what you’re gonna get if you shop a la The Red Shoe, the posh downtown Sioux Falls shoe-tique. When owner Shantel Krebs isn’t catering to the privileged, upper class aristocracy of the Sioux Falls area, she’s peddling anti-feminist legislation through her position as a State Legislator. Successor to Matt “I heart Leslee Unruh” McCaulley and BFF to Governor Mar’ Rounds, her voting record calls for a red shoe’s swift kick to the derrière.
I don’t think it comes as any surprise that Dakota Women might have a left-leaning slant, but as a website that purports to talk about women’s issues, I’d think they might be willing to at least entertain and explore a broader stance on politics than “Yay to abortion under any circumstance, Boo to Republicans.”
Where”s the similar invective and mocking for the female Democratic legislators with the same views?
I actually know women across a broad spectrum of politics. From those on the far left, to those who are so far right that they’d consider me a leftist because my kids go to public school. And I think all of us know more than just a few who have no care of politics – because they’re more interested in making sure their kids are clean, fed, and paying attention to their school work, or they’re busy focusing on their careers. And many do both.
So I must confess that I’m a bit confused as to such a narrow opinion of what they’re considering “issues affecting women in South Dakota.” I had always considered it far broader than that. With few exceptions, I’d figured they’d be the same issues that people of another gender face – Having a good paying job. Having a home. Living in a safe and clean neighborhood. Making sure my kids can go to college. Etcetera and so on.
But, I can understand where some might find that overly broad. Especially when it comes to issues of health, where they can get contentious. My Mom passed away from breast cancer about 7 or so years ago, and men tend to be less susceptible to it. I can accept that the differences in health gets a lot of attention in the discussion. But as noted above, I don’t think that it’s fair to consider it the sole focus, as it tends to become for many.
Which brings up a point – what are “womens’ issues?” As one blogger opined on the topic:
If we’re going to divide up the issues, it makes a lot more sense to do it along the lines of race or class or even geography than along gender. But at the same time, given the gender-stratified society we live in, there are going to be issues that are more (generally) to (many) women than they (typically) are to (most) men. So what do you think? ARE there women’s issues? If so, what are they?
Here’s your chance to sound off. On this first day of 2008, what would you consider women’s issues? (And identify your gender, if you would, so we can compare the points of view.)
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Don’t fall off your chair, K, but I think I’m with you on this one.
I was initially inclined to agree with PP, but you made a compelling rebuttal.
Folks on the Right are used to seeing feminists (or pro-women, if you prefer) stand with and champion women in the political arena by default. So when we see a feminist take issue with another woman, it looks a little contradictory at first.
But your explanation about how the name of a blog doesn’t necessarily strictly define that blog is a good one. While your blog seems to be more of a pro-liberal-women blog than a pro-women blog, coming up with a good name (i.e. one that would roll off the tongue) to fit that exact definition would be difficult.
And while you may take issue with Shantel, even though she’s a “Dakota woman,” I also take issue with Mike Huckabee, even though my blog focuses on the Christian worldview and Huckabee is a Christian.
So, K, you feel it’s OK for all of us to base our spending decisions on the politics of the company’s owner.
Before I go shopping, would you let me know how the owners of Hy Vee feel about abortion? Or how about Best Buy, or Walmart, or the Outback Steakhouse.
My point is, why do you need to call for a boycott of a retailer, just because you HAPPEN to know where she stands on a political issue.
I guarantee you, that you’ve spent a pile of money at stores and restaurants that feel the same way Krebs does. But since you happen to have the owner here locally, you’re going to try and shut down her store.
Typical feminist stupidity!
K, as you admit, you are “not sure what (Pat is) getting at here.” Pat was just pointing out that writer of the blog was making bigoted hate speech under the guise of a self-appointment to define how women should stand on certain issues. The thrust of the blog is similar to the idea that only blacks can use the N word to denigrate other blacks. Denigration and hate speech should just be admonished. People (regardless of gender) of goodwill are turned of by hate-speech.
The author disagrees with Rep. Krebs votes on issues that the self-appointed czar arrogantly determines her views are “pro-woman” giving her the self-appointed authority to slur Ms. Krebs of being self-hating.
While you say that none” of us have ever claimed to speak for all the women of the Dakotas”, what do you think this author has done by deeming that Ms. Krebs views are “woman hating”?
The slap at Ms. Krebs customers was an open resort to class warfare.
I am a man who supports specific laws, policies and charities that protect women from violence. Does this make me “man-hating” or a “feminist”? Of course not. It just means that I recognize that this is a problem that I believe should be addressed by institutions of society.
Now to answer the question of “What are women’s issues?” There are none. While women might bring a particular perspective to an issue just as a person of a different religion, creed or race might bring a different perspective, to insinuate that one has to be a woman to have right motives and legitimate perspectives on an issue is arrogant and bigoted. Perspective is a product not of gender or race but of life experience. To ignore that people of a particular gender or race have many similar experiences which can create similar perspectives is folly. At the same time, to assert that all people of a particular race or gender have universal experiences and reactions to those experiences is equal folly.
The ludicrousness of the concept is when one asks, are there men’s issues for which only men’s perspectives are important and that men who don’t hold the “man’s view” are “men hating?”
With regard to is this blog mislabeled, I think K makes a good point. The title of the blog is one that says that it speaks on certain issues from the perspective of a woman by certain women. The fact that these certain women are predominantly liberal causes me no concern. It would be just as legitimate if these issues were addressed from the perspective of women who are predominantly conservative (unless of course you buy into the premise that true women can only be liberal).
Well said, Troy. I think the “arrogant and bigoted” statements you make are right on. People like “K” do more to set their causes back 20 years, than they do to advace them.
As a young woman, I find it abhorrent that a woman would say that her issues are different than those issues of men.
Yes, there are laws that protect people in society from violence. Why is this simply a women’s issue? Violence against women effects men as well. It is only when we declare that issues are non-gender specific that we can change the way that people look at society.
We can ask the same question then about what makes an issue a Native American issue. I also feel that these issues should be just be considered ISSUES, not race specific. It is only when we decide to quit segregating ourselves from society that society will quit categorizing us in groups.
K- There are NOT that as many liberal women of the Dakotas as you think. They just are louder and you, unfortunately, listen to them more.
And I cannot believe that wanting to be seen as an equal, not something better, than others is considered hating.
A big problem with the DW post on Shantel (who, by the way, I don’t know…if she walked in the door right now I would have no idea who she is) is not just what it says, but how it is said. With the usual invectives (i.e. “So, WTF?), it is a bitter, angry — and I would even say an envious — commentary. What is wrong with a woman participating in a beauty pageant? And you would think that Dakota Women would be celebrating a woman who has her own business that caters to women.
As for “K” in the first comment on this thread…boycotts work both ways. There are businesses here in Rapid City that are run by raging liberal elitists, and I won’t do business with them, either. Why add to their income, which could go to support causes I find offensive?
P.S. I am a woman. And Dakota Women sure as h— doesn’t speak for me. Wait, maybe I should not make that judgment, since the only thing I’ve read is the Shantel post. But I think it’s a pretty good bet.
I’m glad you said what I was thinking, Troy.
I posted earlier under anon (#4) only because I also own a store in Sioux Falls, and don’t need K’s bunch, or anyone else’s, making it harder for me to make ends meet than it already is.
By following pp’s link to the original character assasination of Rep. Krebs, I also see that the writer not-only calls for a boycott of Rep. Krebs store, but also encourages readers to buy their shoes online.
At the same time, I’m sure she’ll be bashing the legislature for not spending enough on “womens issues” next year. So first, we’ll do our best to drive tax dollars out of state, and then question why the state doesn’t do more. Follow that trail, and you’ll end up nowhere.
For all the years I’ve been in business, I don’t ever recall hearing a pro-life spokesman calling for a boycott of a LOCAL business, but I’ve heard it done more than once by the other side. What logic dictates that??
It will be a sad day when local business folks will make the decision that they can’t serve their state, because of narrow minded people with one watermark issue. I guess if you own a business in Sioux Falls, you’re not allowed to have an opinion on issues.
South Dakota is too small of a state to let that happen. We don’t have enough hard-working independent business people, like Rep. Krebs, that are willing to give of their time to make our state better.
May I suggest, that the readers of this blog do everything they can to counteract “K’s” statements, by shopping at Rep. Kreb’s two stores. I think we can make a bigger impact on her business, than the other side can.
4. anon. People can base their spending decisions on any criteria they so choose, anon. How many times around here have we heard people call for a boycott of the Argus? Sauce for the goose — sauce for the gander, you know.
p.s. If you want to know the political, ecological, and human rights policies of people you buy goods from, there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that people who take no intrest in such things are stupid, but hey, that’s just me.
5. Troy. Clearly there are female issues just as there are race issues and a host of other minority issues, with corresponding laws and constitutional amendments to go with them.
Take the ERA for example, or any abortion issue. Those issues are far more urgent and relevant to women than to men, just as Jim Crow laws were far more urgent and relevant to blacks than to whites.
I don’t understand why you are arguing to the contrary.
Surely your position on abortion would be different than a woman’s since you, yourself will never become pregnant. And I would even go so far as to argue that your opinion on such issues carries far less weight.
In fact, on the extreme edges, I would say that if you were supportive of Jim Crow laws for example, chances are you were a bigot.
Do you see what I’m saying?
The minority being oppressed will always have a special and ultimately more moral position than will the oppressor.
Conversely, if everyone were truly interested in equal rights, there would be no issues with which to contend.
We can’t these liberated women who think they are so smart say who they are? bunch of whiny feminazi whackos who are too cowardly to say who they are but are happy to anonymously smear other women they don’t like. Reminds me of junior high.
5. “Now to answer the question of ‘What are women’s issues?’ There are none.” Really? How about yeast infections? Do you not think that is a woman’s issue? If you are not a medical doctor, are you uniquely qualified to discuss that issue? Do you care to discuss that issue about ALL women
Sounds to me like these “women” are dumping on Krebs because she is pretty and prosperous. How sad.
#1…I wondered the same thing about how pro-life Democrats would fare at Dakota Women. I don’t know Sen. Bartling but I do know Rep. Miles, and she is a class act, in my opinion. Hopefully she won’t be another target of Dakota Women’s tasteless trash.
Actually, PP, I am quite certain I’ve criticized Glenski and Miles and complimented Joni Clark-Cutler on Dakota Women. Kathy Miles was my representative in District 15 for many years, until I moved, and I agree with anonymous 15 that my interaction with her was always positive. She listened to my views politely and expressed her own in the same way. Do I not have the right to criticize those views because she’s nice?
And why can’t any of us use whatever criteria we choose when considering when and how to spend our money? I don’t make enough money to shop at either of Krebs’ stores to begin with, but if I decide not to do business with her because I don’t like her politics, what does it matter to any of you? I avoid other stores because I can’t afford the prices, or have had bad customer service experiences – how is that any different? Business owners are allowed to have whatever political opinion they care to have, obviously, and their customers have the right to choose to shop elsewhere.
Bigoted hate speech, Troy? I guess I took it as more of a joke; public figures are often the target of a little ribbing around here (remember Stan A. as Cartman?). But I suppose it wouldn’t be the SD blogosphere if everyone didn’t running around acting dramatic and scandalized all the time.
EasZ, my identity is no more a secret than PPs. When do you plan to start commenting under your full name?
Anna, the logical arguments in your post is something #s 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc., will never understand. To some of them, beliefs and arguments outside of their own simply cannot be tolerated. Notice how #15 thinks criticism of Krebs is all about looks. Typical shallowness of someone unable to think outside the box.
19 from 15. “To some of them, beliefs and arguments outside of their own simply cannot be tolerated.” That describes Dakota Women to a “T.” There needs to be room for all viewpoints. If a woman if pro-life (anti-abortion), she is entitled to that belief. And I didn’t say it was ALL about looks…but if you look at the Dakota Women post, Krebs’ supposed attractiveness takes quite a hit. If someone had trashed a Dakota Woman for being obese or homely, trust me, they would be howling.
See Max, there you go again. You call people who don’t agree with you shallow, say they can’t think outside the box, say they’ll “never understand”, then criticize them for not tolerating the other side’s arguments, while you do the exact same thing… Thankfully, you libs will never realize that your superiority complex is what’s keeping you in the minority.
Anna-
Please note that I didn’t say anything about personal decisions on where to shop. My problem is with an organization, or in this case a blog, that seems to think it speaks for all women of SD, to call for a boycott.
Rep. Krebs is a public figure that is forced to make decisions on her beliefs in a public forum.
If every business person in the SD Legislature was boycotted based on every vote they made, there’d be more boycotts than you could count. My points are 1- Why should a person have to risk their business and well-being by serving in the legislature, and 2- Is it right that one business owner gets singled out, while there are thousands more that share the same viewpoint, but don’t have the guts to run for office.
Bill, I hope I don’t know what you are saying. If you are saying what I think, I disagree with you.
We live in a republican democracy in which the views of the people are expressed at the ballot box. There is no distinction between race, gender, creed, etc. We don’t distinguish elections nor ballot initiatives by these criteria. Each and every vote is treated equally. Are you really saying that only women who can bear children and thus eligible to have an abortion have a legitimate view on this issue or that their view should carry greater weight?
Furthermore, I resent the innuendo that people who advocate for the protection of the unborn are oppressors or immoral. Most pro-lifers see their position as advocacy of the civil rights of the less powerful against the arbitrary power of one more powerful. In fact, I have never heard a single person who advocates an end to abortion as motivated to do so to oppress. To assert such is a slur with intent to denigrate.
Frankly, Bill, of all the arguments on this issue, this is the most intellectually lame and morally repulsive. I really expect more from you. If a pro-choice person also advocated that if the father wants the mother to have an abortion or give the baby up for adoption and the mother chooses to keep the baby, the father is relieved of all obligations (including financial, parental and moral) I’d maybe respect this argument as it respects his choice. But since I’ve never heard this position articulated, I’ll assume nobody holds it. Again, this argument offends me.
Max, since I’m number #5, I want you to know that I understand Anna’s arguments. What makes you think that I couldn’t understand them? Or are you one of those people who thinks anyone who holds a different position than you is stupid? Seems kinda condescending and arrogant.
Troy. The fact that you have to twist yourself in knots to defend your position should be your first clue.
A woman and her body are a nation of one. Liberty starts and ends with the individual.
Her liberty is sacrosanct by virtue of the Declaration of Independence and the 14th Amendment. Your opinion or mine in the context of her liberty is largely irrelevant.
Your choice to be offended or not offended by that is really of no consequence since the process and the liberty involved is of absolutely no concern to you. Her freedom is hers and hers alone.
That’s what I am saying.
Anna, I know where you are coming from. You are totally free to express your political views in any legal manner you choose, including boycotting a business owned by someone with who you disagree politically. I’ll defend your right to do so.
This being said, I ask you to reconsider your position. Myself, if a business owner was using the business itself or its resources to promote a political agenda, I would boycott those businesses (even those in which I agree).
However, in the case of a person involved in politics, I would not punish his livlihood. We really need to encourage more people to serve without risk to their family’s financial well-being. If I needed a copyright attorney, I’d consider Todd Epp even though we don’t agree politically. When I lived in Pierre, everyone told me to buy a suit at Kip Scott’s place. I went in there but didn’t buy because his suits were too expensive for this state employee, not because he was the Chairman of the SD Democrat party. In fact, I probably gave him a shot because he cared enough to be in the arena.
To serve is a sacrifice financially and personally (esp. if one has a family). My old friend Pat Kane (Democrat legislator and lawyer) once said that he gave his most productive earning years to the legislature. While I’m sure that he thinks it was worth the sacrifice, I don’t think it serves the greater good to make their service punishment, even those with whom we disagree. Political opponents are not our enemies. They are our neighbors.
So why exactly does that “Womens’ blog” think Krebs hates women? What “anti-feminist” legislation is she peddling?
By using the same yardstick used against Christians and conservatives, why wouldn’t this be considered “hate speech”.
PS- I am a man, but I also know many women who share my views.
Bill Fleming, how do you think it happened that the 14th Amendment gave “personhood” to the slaves and has since been interpreted to take it away from the unborn.
Along those lines, wouldn’t it have been wonderful if your mother had celebrated her right as a woman and had you aborted? C’mon now, don’t get mad. It’s happened to 50 million babies. The world could have gotten along without Bill Fleming. Might’ve even turned out to be a better place.
#20: You state you didn’t say it was all about looks. “Sounds to me like these “women” are dumping on Krebs because she is pretty and prosperous. How sad.” Sure.
#21: Thanks for proving my point, anon. I never said I’m liberal. You made a typical assumption simply because I pointed out that using someone’s looks or wealth is childish. Suddenly that makes me liberal. Your box is shrinking. Get out while you can.
Troy, that’s nice you understand Anna’s position. Good for you. I included you because you said this: “Now to answer the question of ‘What are women’s issues?’ There are none.” You answered as if you are an expert and authority on women. Seems pretty arrogant to me.
I haven’t gotten beyond the point of wondering why Dakota Women is said to presume it speaks for all Dakota women while a blog called Dakota Voice is not cited for the same presumption.
Nor have I gotten beyond the point of wondering why a blog that is created to spin a particular brand of political hackery is expected to do anything other than spin political hackery.
Blogs are not vehicles of fact and reason.
“Blogs are not vehicles of fact and reason.”
Nor are CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times…..
Uh oh. Someone was naughty enough to speak out against on of PP’s buddies. See what happens?
Before I go any further, I repsectively request the elimination of the word “invective” from this blog. Seriously, PP, you treat the word like it’s a new toy that you just have to find a way to use. I might be off, but I think you dropped it 1,274,981 times during your little spat with Sibby.
OK. Now to the issue.
Why didn’t the author go after any anti-abortion dems? It could just be… relevance. Makes sense to me. A news story pops up about Krebs, so the blogger went after Krebs.
Women’s issues, you ask? There’s issues that impact everyone, and there are others that specifically address women.
I don’t think that it’s a stretch to call abortion a woman’s issue. When Bill Napoli was talking about bringing back shotgun weddings to make men marry the women they brutally sodomize, I’d venture a few women were put off by the notion.
It’s easy to see why women believe their views need better representation.
For crying out loud, PP, you even said that men “tend to be less susceptible” to breast cancer. They TEND to, huh? Great Ceasar’s Ghost, that’s a simple-minded perspective if I have ever read one.
What are women’s issues? Equality.
Equal rights, perhaps. Equal pay. Equal access to healthcare (you know, how come everywhere I turn, I see an ad that wants to help me get an erection, but women have to beg lawmakers for birth control options?).
There are inequities. Wouldn’t you agree?
Nonnie,
Just a review, as it seems you’ve frozen your thinking apparatus up in Minot.
3 times. The word has been used three times in the entire history of this website.
Otherwise, I think you need to go back to med school. The last time I checked, men get breast cancer too.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/malebreastcancer.html
But please, don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant.
It is cold up here. Can’t sleep.
I also know that you took down the invective-infused Sibby post, which would have doubled – nay tripled – that number. Otherwise, it was just a joke. Don’t take it too seriously.
Secondly. I know that, on rare occasions, men develop breast cancer.
About 1 in 8 women develop the disease.
The statistics for men, which I can’t seem to find because it’s likely to rare to even be calculated, are less damning.
So… I suppose you’re technically correct.
I just struggled to find the relevance of that sentence, and then I couldn’t get past the word choice. I mean, far more women ACTUALLY suffer from breast cancer – that’s not a TENDACNY, thats a fact.
Good night.
interesting discussion – did what a good blog should do – made us think… So let me ponder this to my friend Bill F, if you have to be an Afro-American to care about race (your example above), because you assume issues are owned only by those that may see the most impact from them, what race did you figure Ab Lincoln was , or all those dead Union soldiers? Read the recent Lincoln book, and one thing that comes through amongst some of his rivals and the anti-segregationists, is an understanding that something bad for some part of society is bad for all of it.
Troy is advocating the whole clothe view of mankind and social challenges; and some.. hint, hint… are advocating a more balkanized view… may be good politics, but “i’m just say’n”…..
36. I was astonished to hear Ron Paul tell Tim Russert that the Civil War was unnecessary. He says that the loss of 400,000 lives was an avoidable tragedy. The government instead could have purchased the slaves and set them free, much as Great Britain and other countries did when they abolished slavery.
And my point was not that you had to be black or enslaved to be opposed to slavery but rather that if you were, your position in wanting liberty carried the most moral authority.
I suppose if you are fighting for the liberation of fertilized eggs you could take a similar position, but I would argue that in such cases you are not defending a minority position but rather a heretofore unrecognized majority. And to follow through with your conviction would involves a staggering, if not impossible, challenge logistically.
Remember 70% of all fertilized eggs are lost in the first few days and months of pregnancy. I think it is best psychologicallyfor society to consider that these human organisms are not yet persons. It is either that or to teach our children to accept a natural (divine?) tragedy of epic proportions.
37. You write: “Remember 70% of all fertilized eggs are lost in the first few days and months of pregnancy.” So? What if it were 1%? 90%? The whole issue boils down to when life begins. Nobody is going to convince anybody else to change their minds. So give it up.
Same sort of arbitrary number comes into play with the women vs. men cases of breast cancer. Because there are many fewer men, that makes it less of an issue?
38. The point is, if fertilized eggs are persons, how to you ensure them equal protection under the law? And as far as when life begins, it’s clear that life comes from other life and — as yet — no one knows when it began. i.e. Life is a continuum. All life is the same life. That’s the science.
And I don’t understand your breast cancer example.
The one thing I know about Shantel Krebs is she strongly supported abstinece-only sex ed in the State House — luckily, the measure proved to radical even for the GOP dominated body as common sense prevailed over the Christian right, a rare thing in our South Dakota house.
40. Krebs represents a certain constituency that deserves to be heard as does any other point of view. But as you noted, the idea was voted down. That’s the way democracy works, even in SD, ha.
Does a fertilized egg make a pregnancy if it doesn’t implant in the unterine wall and is lost?
Shantel Krebs is a friend of mine, as is her husband Mitch. Anyone who thinks Shantel is a dingy blonde does so at their own peril. She is smart and does her homework. Do I agree with her many issues? No I do not. Do I think she’s a decent person who takes her job as a legislator seriously? Yes I do.
I thought the Dakota Women article was over the top but I also understand where it is coming from. I also do not have a problem boycotting businesses whose politics we disagree with and frequenting those we do agree with. So, as far as the DW article discusses Shantel’s stands on the issues re abortion, I think that is fair game.
However, I do not think a personal attack on Shantel is warranted. That is what I had the problem with.
As to being a “beauty queen,” I think feminism now allows (or should allow) for women to make their own decisions on these types of things. I have actually been a judge at a Miss South Dakota pageant. Almost to a woman and girl, these were intelligent, articulate women. And believe me, if you can wear a bathing suit in front of a bunch of people, public speaking is a snap in comparison.
While I would not want my own daughter to participate in such an event, it would ultimately be her choice. Many girls and young women learn many skills and gain confidence and poise by participating in these events.
Shantel is in my legislative district and I have a responsibility as a Lincoln Co. Democratic committeeman to try and find a candidate who can defeat her and Roger Hunt in the House. Believe me, I understand the difficulty of that mission when it comes to Shantel. Attractive, smart, articulate, hard working, and polite. Those qualities, no matter what your politics, will often spell electoral success.
Again, I sound like a broken record on this. We can disagree about politics and policies but that doesn’t mean it has to get personal. And the DW article got too personal.
I’m just sayin’.
Todd
Mr. Epp, you were doing great until you got to the tiresome “I’m just sayin’ ” thing that you and BF like to invoke. Why was that necessary? It is almost as if you were apologizing for your comment. That said, I respect you for having the guts to do it. (Now, if you could just quit beating up on Sanford…that would be real progress.)
42. Thank you. You call into question the whole issue of in vitro fertilization and the disposition of embryonic stem cells as well as interuterine eggs that fail to implant. It is precisely the reason I continue to challenge the notion that fertilized eggs are “persons” and subject to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Plegm, when it was drafted the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with fertilized eggs or abortion. It had to do with the people formerly owned as slaves. It will never have anything to do with fertilized eggs or abortion, in spite of what activist judges have to say.
44
“I’m just sayin’” is just a humorous exclamation that BF and I like to use to punctuate our erudite epistles on this blog. We don’t want people to think we’re too uppity or anything. BF and TDE are men of the people.
I’m just sayin’.
Todd
Yeah, Fleming always has to remind everybody how hip (yikes, probably an outdated term!) and trendy and cool he is.
I was gonna ask who or what is Jessica Rabbit, but I looked it up on your favorite source (wikipedia) and I still don’t get it. Don’t attempt to explain. I guess I am just hopelessly out of it.
55. BTW you looked in the wrong place. Here’s the answer, if you’re even remotely interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kthLrvW07wI
Best,
BF
p.s. Last I knew “Anon” with a capital “a” was kind of cool. Is that still you? (Just checkin’).
C’mon, Todd. Are you saying you’ve never written a blog that contained ‘personal attacks’ on public figures? It’s fine if you want to defend your friends, but I think it’s a little unfair for you to get self-righteous about this. If that post had been about Leslee, you wouldn’t have have batted an eye. I’m sure her friends think she’s polite, too.
See K– Even Todd thinks you guys are over the top. You’re too arrogant to see that you’re your own worst enemy.
DakotaVoice certainly doesn’t speak for all Christian Dakotans and Dakota Women doesn’t speak for all women.
I should be free to diss Leslee Unruh and Kate Looby without being labeled as an enemy of women everywhere.
A ‘woman’s issue’ is an issue that affects women and can encompass issues that affect both genders as well as ones that affect women only: Equality, reproduction, health, pay.
Men should be concerned with those issues as well, instead of dismissing them and patting women patronizingly on the head.
Reproduction freedom affects women greatly and there is vastly more legislation restricting women’s reproductive organs and their choices than men. Birth control and abortion and women’s access to both have been legislated and limited extensively throughout the US.
I have yet to see legislation stating that sperm is a ‘life’ although it is definitely alive and is essential to fertilization. That would make masturbation by men basically abortion wouldn’t it?
I have not read the above readers posts. I do feel safe to say that Dakota Women Blog does NOT speak for all SD woman and I do mean Women.
64. Yup, that’s the safest way to look it, Homes, especially if you are a chronic gopher choker.
Hey Plegm, from all your “colorful” comments I figure you sure must have done a whole lot of many things.
Anonymous #64
Given the nuttiness of pro-lifers these days, do you doubt that they would believe that about sperm? Since they already equate a single ovarian cell to a human being, they would certainly believe the same of sperm.
And you call me certifiable. I see nothing but insanity among many pro-lifers. You are crazy if you can’t see it yourself.
Damn, I’ve got to quit doing this. Every time I can’t sleep, I decide to see what’s happening on the blogs, and invariably I find something like this that gets me riled up, making it nearly impossible to get back to sleep.
For the Dakota Women blog to write something like this about another person, because she doesn’t happen to agree with them, goes beyond human decency.
I mean, it’s obvious they would have Shantel killed if they could. She doesn’t agree with them on a couple issues, so they say she “hates” women. Then they feel it’s their right to publicly ridicule her, and try to cause her financial ruin.
Our legislators have to agree, or disagree, with people and organizations every single day they’re in Pierre. If every group they disagreed with showed the pured hatred and spite of the Dakota Women, it would be a pretty ugly place to be.
I’ve got to believe a psychologist would have a heyday analyzing that post. It just spews of hate, and dare I say, downright evil intentions. Then they add that cheerleader cartoon…. C’mon, that’s Junior High stuff.. It’s obvious they’re frustrated because people don’t take them seriously, and can’t understand why they get labeled as extremists or radicals.
I mean, they’re inferring that just because Shantel was born female, she HAS to agree with them, and if she doesn’t…. attack her !!!!!
It has been my pleasure to meet Rep. Krebs a number of times. She is one of the nicest, and happiest people you’d ever want to run across. I can’t understand how the author of this post can generate so much hatred towards her.
Blogs can be wonderful things… A place to discuss issues. But when a group feels they have the right to try and cause humiliation and financial ruin to another person, just because she doesn’t always agree with them, is just so….wrong…and really, really sad.
Patti, I have never heard a single person claim that an ovarian cell was a human being or that sperm was life. If you want to be taken seriously, you really need to have a realistic perception of those you want to convince.
Furthermore, you claim that equality, reproduction, health and pay are “women’s issues” and then you say that men should care about them too. Well, it is either an issue that you own exclusively for which you don’t need men or it isn’t a women’s issue. You can’t have it both ways.
Finally, there is this pervasive attitude in many feminists that men’s opinions on these so-called women’s issues are totally selfish, devoid of concern for women and in fact are intended to be anti-women. I’m a husband and father of three daughters. There is not a single sacrifice I wouldn’t make for them or view that I have in which I don’t put their well-being ahead of my own. And, I am not the exception but one of the rule.
If self-identified feminists want me to listen to their views, they would be much more likely to get through if the words, tone and attitude doesn’t first villify me with an accusation that my motives are “anti-women”.
69. This is the part where emotions and belief systems overcome rationality and science.
Clearly human egg cells and sperm cells are living human organisms with the potential to become fully realized human beings. I think that is probably Patti’s point.
Keep in mind that DNA is an inert molecule (or pair of molecules if you prefer). It is not a living substance, nor can it interact directly with any other living substance but rather only with RNA.
To say that DNA denotes life is equivalent to saying that a blueprint equals a finished house.
A human sperm cell, on the other hand is indeed a living human organism as are egg cells. That’s just the way it is. The rest is what you make of it (i.e. how you feel about it and what you believe.)
Bill, clearly you are wrong. If we are going to have an intelligent scientific discussion using terms that have meaning, we have to use them correctly. An organism is “a living body, either vegetable or animal, made up of different organs or parts with functions which are separate, but mutually dependent, and essential to the life of the individual”. In biology discussions cells are components of the greater whole which is the organism.
Let me restate what I said before: Until today, I’ve never heard anyone say that a human egg or sperm cell was human life and have never heard it from someone with a basic understanding of biology terms.
Back to Shantel; in an inteview on KSOO radio, she tried to claim she didn’t support abstinence-only sex-ed but had to back away when Knobe (who usually does have his facts straight) said she was on the record supporting it.
It’s funny how these Right Wingers rail against government until it suits their agenda… kind of like the new Republican plan to have the Fed bail out subprime mortgage holders.
She’s kind of a female version of John Thune… looks pretty, even sounds good most of the time; but basically just a foot soldier for their party leaders.
I’d love to see Shantel face some real competition this year… Is there any hope of replacing her in her District?
71. Sorry Troy, but your assertion is inaccurate. There are single celled organisms:
From wikipedia (of course):
“In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of reacting to stimuli, reproduction, growth and maintenance as a stable whole (after FAO[1]). An organism may be unicellular or made up, like humans, of many billions of cells divided into specialized tissues and organs.”
Noone with minimal biology knowledge would assert that the human sperm or egg cell is a unicellular organism. Even the quote you used said that a human organism is not unicellular. I suddenly feel like I’ve been baited into debating nonsense. Best wishes.
I only bring it up because of your assertion that a single celled fertilized human ovum is a person.
About the egg/sperm deal and whether that is a “human” and BF’s crack about masturbation. Didn’t the Old Testament call “onanism” a sin because it was the “spilling of seed”? That would seem to suggest to this Methodist Sunday schooled Buddhist that perhaps the Old Testament folks thought sperm was a person or at least a “pre-person.”
(I have no idea if the Old Testament folks even really knew how babies came about from a biological or medical perspective. Perhaps they thought you got pregnant by dancing or playing cards. Oh, wait, that was John the Baptist and his bunch. Sorry.)
Or perhaps they were just trying to reduce blindness Back in the Day.
I’m just sayin’.
77. To be clear, it is all human. It is all living. All life is the same life. That’s the science. The rest has to do with how you feel about it and what you believe.
(Todd… or maybe to get rid of those hairy palms.)
The article I linked to suggests that humans are actually “superorganisms” consisting of an array of human tissue and non-human microbes (bacteria, etc.) without which the human body could not sustain itself.
(”And life goes on within you and without you…” – Beatles)
“I mean, it’s obvious they would have Shantel killed if they could.”
Oh come on. That’s just sillly. I’d advise you against reading Doonsbury or watching Saturday Night Live — they often lampoon public figures for humorous effect and I’m afraid it would be too much for your delicate sensibilities.
And who’s ‘they’ anyway? Feminists in general? Or all of the contributors to DakotaWomen? This is my big problem with this whole topic, PP. Because *you* asserted that this post was the work of the all the DakotaWomen and that we’re claiming we speak for all women, that’s what people believe, no matter what any of us actually say.
K get back in the kitchen and make me a pie. Don’t trip over Patti. She’s busy cleaning the carpet.
And before you get offended, K, remember what you said. “they often lampoon public figures for humorous effect and I’m afraid it would be too much for your delicate sensibilities.”
If we don’t put some humor in here from time to time we will all kill each other.
To Troy, et al,
From SDHB1215
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1215p.htm
“(2) “Unborn human being,” an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth;”
I’m assuming this is the prevailing pro-life mindset as it pertains to personhood.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Now see “zygote” which is defined as a “single cell.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
It is important to note that a human being can also be derived from a haploid (as opposed to a diploid cell) cell via cloning. Such, unfortunately, is the nature of the debate, like it or not. Like I said, the first thing we have to overcome are our feelings on the matter.
86. (grabs anon 1:17, picks him/her up, gives him/her a head noogie. Pretends to poke him/her in the eyes with two fingers, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, 3 Stooges style, makes a big fart nose, blames in on him/her, and comments on the smell of his/her breath. Drops her down to stage. Walks off saying how s/he should have worn something different to the play today.)
Man, keeping you conservatives entertained is a lot of work. I’m just sayin’.
Bill, thank you for referencing the language from HB1215. It totally exposes the nonsense of Patti’s following comments:
1) Pro-life advocates “already equate a single ovarian cell to a human being” and,
2) Innuendo that prolife advocates also believe “sperm is a ‘life’” making “masturbation abortion.”
And your comments to back up Pattie of “Clearly human egg cells and sperm cells are living human organisms” and then your repeated gyrations to fit your own opinion is hilarious. It is expecially funny that you then try to introduce your own religious/phylosophical concept that “All life is the same life” when you are so quick to dismiss the religious/philosophical cncepts of others.
I am really laughing. Your attempt to make pro-life advocates look like idiots didn’t have the effect intended.
89. I am comfortable to assert that we are all idiots, Troy. That is, after all, our lot in life. Even so we have decisions to make together as best we can.
Nobody knows what it’s like to be a woman, ‘cept for Tammy Wynette and Troy Jones. And Tammy’s deceased.
89. p.s “All life is the same life” is not a belief or a philosophy, but rather a scientific fact with which we must all come to grips. Best, BF
The belief that blogs are all about egos is pretty much confirmed by this thread.
Get back to the original topic or MAKE IT STOP!!!
And 87, I don’t get it. Seems like you are trying to keep yourself entertained because the rest of us got the eyes-glazed-over look a zillion posts ago.
89.
1) To stipulate that a single celled zygote is a person is precisely as Patti claimed.
2) Also, as per above.
3) The conjoining of two cells to become one does not constitute a person. There is no difference in human status either before or after the conjoining. The potential was always there. That’s the reason the cells exist. In fact, I’ll argued that it is the only reason they exist.
4) The conjoining of such cells is neither necessary nor sufficient to initiate a new person. The egg cell alone will suffice. This has been established scientifically for quite some time. Furthermore, numerous individuals can result from such egg/sperm conjoining, not just one. There is no “individuality” present in the event per se, as is demonstrated by the fact that one in every 250 persons born is an identical twin. Persons come later in the human development stage and are the product of environmental factors beyond the scope of mere stimulation of omnipotent single cell division. That is the science.
I hope the Iowa caucuses aren’t typified by the kind of attitudes and thinking that go on here. I kind of had hopes for democracy.
94. Then by all means, stop reading.
Plus I’m always amazed when someone presumes to know what everyone else thinks. That’s kind of socialist, isn’t it?
I know, I know, “I’ve already made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts!”
High School Sophomore Biology:
egg + sperm= zygote
egg ? sperm
sperm ? zygote
zygote ? egg.
Hb1215: Human being=zygote
Patti erroneously claimed that pro-life advocates believe:
“single ovarian cell”=human being killing of sperm= abortion.
Science: Human Organism is a system of multiple interdependent cells.
Bill:
Human Egg= Human Organism
Human Sperm= Human Organism
“All life is the same life”
Do I have this right? Thus, even though a person is clinically dead (no life), according to Bill they must be still perdominatly alive until what 51% of their cells die? It is a known scientific fact that for instance individual blood cells (as well as other cells) don’t die immediately upon death of the human organism. While this “all life is same life” is certainly novel, it isn’t accepted in science.
And then the scientific concept of parthenogenisis is introduced which isn’t even about human reproduction but about mostly insects, reptiles, fish and birds. This is really absurd.
High School Sophomore Biology:
egg + sperm= zygote
egg ? sperm
sperm ? zygote
zygote ? egg.
Hb1215: Human being=zygote
Patti erroneously claimed that pro-life advocates believe:
“single ovarian cell”=human being killing of sperm= abortion.
Science: Human Organism is a system of multiple interdependent cells.
Bill:
Human Egg= Human Organism
Human Sperm= Human Organism
“All life is the same life”
Do I have this right? Thus, even though a person is clinically dead (no life), according to Bill they must be still perdominatly alive until what 51% of their cells die? It is a known scientific fact that for instance individual blood cells (as well as other cells) don’t die immediately upon death of the human organism. While this “all life is same life” is certainly novel, it isn’t accepted in science.
And then the scientific concept of parthenogenisis is introduced which isn’t even about human reproduction but about mostly insects, reptiles, fish and birds. This is really absurd.
High School Sophomore Biology:
egg + sperm= zygote
egg ? sperm
sperm ? zygote
zygote ? egg.
Hb1215: Human being=zygote
Patti erroneously claimed that pro-life advocates believe:
“single ovarian cell”=human being killing of sperm= abortion.
Science: Human Organism is a system of multiple interdependent cells.
Bill:
Human Egg= Human Organism
Human Sperm= Human Organism
“All life is the same life”
Do I have this right? Thus, even though a person is clinically dead (no life), according to Bill they must be still perdominatly alive until what 51% of their cells die? It is a known scientific fact that for instance individual blood cells (as well as other cells) don’t die immediately upon death of the human organism. While this “all life is same life” is certainly novel, it isn’t accepted in science.
And then the scientific concept of parthenogenisis is introduced which isn’t even about human reproduction but about mostly insects, reptiles, fish and birds. This is really absurd.
and the question mark in my formulas was supposed to be the “does not equal” sign.
Troy,
Patti said that a human sperm is alive. I concurred. That makes it human life if it is human sperm. Further a sperm and an egg side by side contain the exact same genetic material as the sperm and egg conjoined and have the exact same potential for someday producing a new human individual.
The rest of her comment, I believe was to point up the absurdity of calling human reproductive cells “persons” given that the same physical material is involved from one moment to the next and that there is no new life but rather a continuation of existing life. A fertilized chicken egg is still an egg. A germinated sunflower seed still a seed, etc. Same with humans.
Further, a human egg cell can reproduce and form new a new human without fertilization. This has been established in the laboratory and is a scientific fact (parthenogenisis). And yes, we have problems with it ethically, but that doesn’t change the veracity of the claim. In fact the new and widely acclaimed method of producing stem cells is based on this fact.
So yes, finally, I consider human gametes to be single celled human organisms, especially egg cells. That’s why cloning is possible. Besides your assertion that a single celled zygote is a human organism is really no different than my assertion and runs counter to your “system of multiple interdependent cells” assertion above, since a zygote is, by definition a single cell, as are the subsequent omnimotent cells formed later at the blastocyst phase, each of which is capable of becoming a fully realized adult human being (person).
Please understand that I am not engaging in an ethical argument here, just reviewing the science.
And from all the sources I’ve read, all life is the same life. This is far from a novel concept. It is common and widely accepted scientific knowledge. I invite you to point out evidence to the contrary.
I think Monty Python said it best in the Meaning of Life:
“Every sperm is sacred/Every sperm is great/And if one is wasted/God gets quite irate.”
Thus, under Pythonian logic, sperm = person.
Ergo. . .
Masturbation = murder.
And. . .
Eggs = Rep. Ted Klaud’t retirement plan.
And who dare assails the logic of the great Monty Python troupe?
Exactly.
I rest my case.
OMG you guys, Bob Ellis is recommending that pro-lifers boycott companies that support Planned Parenthood. I hope you’re all equally as outraged!
Anna:
I don’t have an issue with DW wanting pro-choice women who like expensive shoes boycotting Shantel. I did have an issue with how DW attacked her personally. That’s all.
I also would have guessed Bob would have wanted anti-abortion supporters to boycot companies who do business with PP (no Pat, not you) years ago. Old news. And like you, his right to promote.
Todd
P.S. #110 comments and counting, a new land speed record for SDBlogOSphere commenting! We rock!
Troy Jones,
I see a good many pro-lifers who are really scarey. I still remember the ones who bomb clinics, murder doctors and proudly display offensive photos of bloody fetuses. Are these sane acts to you?
Bill,
You said it far better than I could. Thank you.
“All the tiny, deft chemical processes that animate cells — the cooperative efforts of nucleotides, the transcription of DNA into RNA — evolved just once and have stayed pretty well fixed ever since across the whole of nature. As the late French geneticist Jacques Monod put it, only half in jest: “Anything that is true of E. coli must be true of elephants, except more so.”
Every living thing is an elaboration on a single original plan. As humans we are mere increments — each of us a musty archive of adjustments, adaptations, modifications, and providential tinkerings stretching back 3.8 billion years. Remarkably, we are even quite closely related to fruit and vegetables. About half the chemical function that take place in a banana are fundamentally the same as the chemical functions that take place in you.
It cannot be said too often: all life is one. That is, and I suspect will forever prove to be, the most profound true statement there is.”
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything (2003)
110. Yeah that’s because of you and BF. I checked again this morning to see if anybody else had anything else to say. No such luck.
113. Well, ARRRG etc., your contributions thus far have certainly been interesting, entertaining and thought provoking. Thanks for sharing.
114. I like to read what OTHER people have to say. If I have nothing of real value to contribute, I don’t do it just to hear myself talk.
Bill-
Please remember that just because you can find things that have been written about when life begins, etc., that there’s just as many things written in the opposing viewpoint too.
Also, just because someone writes a column, doesn’t mean it’s accurate, or the truth… Just look at the Argus for example.
117. I hear you anon, and I’ll be happy to read and discuss them all — to the limits of my ability to comprehend them.
Best regards.
Honestly, I think you’re looking a little too far into it, PP. DakotaWomen is a group blog and all the contributors work pretty independently. We don’t have editorial meetings where we sit down and decide what pressing women’s issues we’re going to try to cover. Just like I’m assuming you do, if something seems sort of interesting to one of us, we’ll write about it. I don’t know what Anna or KeepAskingWhy is going to say and they don’t know what I’m up to.
By the same token, I have no idea if all of the DakotaWomen are liberal or democratic or not. Obviously, I’m pretty liberal and that’s going to inform what I write about and how I say it. I don’t think any of us have ever claimed to speak for all the women of the Dakotas, but “Some Dakota Women” seems like a pretty silly name for a blog. Is Bob Ellis really the Voice of the Dakotas? Are Ken and Jason the last word in South Dakota Politics? Or are we expected to be representative because we’ve chosen to identify ourselves as women? We’re women in the Dakotas, so it seems to me that an issue affecting one of us is sort of automatically an issue affecting at least *a* woman in North or South Dakota.
As for your question, “Where’s the similar invective and mocking for the female Democratic legislators with the same views?” I guess I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. It was an post about one particular legislator…obviously that means that the rest aren’t discussed. I don’t think that should be taken as any sort of stamp of approval for the Kathy Miles’ and Julie Bartlings of the world. But there are a lot of ‘liberal democratic Dakota Women’ out there that shop at Shantel’s shoe store without being aware of her politics, so for them, it might be some good information.