On tit-for-tat legislation
As more and more legislators propose laws for transvaginal ultrasounds and other laws designed to attack a woman's right to the integrity of her own body, other legislators have proposed laws to force men who wish to use medication to offset the symptoms of EDS to also undergo invasive procedures which deny them the right to the integrity of their own bodies. Similarly, as more and more legislators propose bills to force welfare recipients to undergo drug testing, other legislators have proposed laws to force legislators to undergo drug testing. In no such cases do the people proposing such legislation expect or even desire the legislation to pass. Self-admittedly, they are "just trying to make a point."
While the impulse to this sort of tit-for-tat legislation is fully understandable, one might wonder if it is wise.
Consider these points: the right-wing maniacs who are proposing the invasive, strong-arm laws to violate the integrity of women, welfare recipients, or anyone else, are not likely to be moved, or amused, by such counter-proposals. Nor are the many who are opposed to all such laws likely to be influenced by the retaliatory proposals, as they are merely a manner of preaching to the choir. Who then, is left to be influenced by such back-and-forth? Only persons who are genuinely uncertain about the appropriateness of such kinds of laws.
I wonder if these people, let's call them "undecided," are likely to be persuaded by such tit-for-tat proposals that the level of discourse has been raised? Or are they more likely to think that all legislators are a pack of idiots, who will waste valuable time and tax resources arguing over silly bills that have no chance of passing while ignoring and delaying legislation that might have some value?
Consider that it has been claimed that the Republicans have overtly attempted to lower the public's opinion of our legislative assemblies because to do so will promote an attitude of "a plague on both your houses," which both promotes apathy -- since all are criminals and fools, why vote -- and also promotes an instinct to throw all the rascals out and put in new. One might ask if tit-for-tat legislation, however understandable, doesn't play into such tactics, and suggest that it might be wiser to eschew it than embrace it.
-- Mal
= new reply since forum marked as read
Obvious blind spot, there.
By that argument, similar counter-legislation in re drug-testing of welfare recipients would be seen as empowering the welfare recipients? And you would contend that this empowerment is of greater value than the likely loss of respect for legislators for stooping to such methods?
-- Mal
... since you represent a member of the "choir" I spoke of in the OP.
I thank you for the insight. It is likely that my own feeling that tit-for-tat proposals lower the discourse stems in some part from the fact that I am not one of the oppressed, and hence do not require (nor receive) any sense of empowerment from them. In turn, I would suggest that not all who doubt the utility of such proposals do so as a cloak to hide their misogyny.
It might have made for an interesting poll question, if there was such a function in DU3. Unfortunately, there has not yet been enough discussion in this thread to get any sense of the diversity of opinion.
-- Mal
