• qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think women should maybe leave these places if they can. I wouldn’t even let a man think about having kids with me if I were a woman in any of those shit states.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      126
      ·
      9 months ago

      …maybe leave these places if they can.

      These laws are targeted towards poor women who can’t fight back. This one is making the news because she’s suing. I guarantee that if an attorney hasn’t taken up the fight, you’d never hear about it.

      • persolb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        9 months ago

        This seems like a good place for a charity… although the cost isn’t just a bus ticket but also probably temporary housing/income as well.

        Shit. I just realized I’m suggesting a refugee agency for US states.

      • SirStumps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        I completely agree with your statement. The issue with OPs statement is that it’s ideal for those with means but unrealistic for those without.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          In some ways the opposite. When I left my shit tier flyover village I had nothing. Nothing was connecting me back home and there was no backup plan. It would be a lot more difficult for me to move now given all the roots I have put down.

          What we think we control ends up controlling us. That mortgage that was supposed to make us free of landlords, that house we can’t sell, that car that we struggle to find parking for, that career we worked so hard on building. I am not advocating giving anything up I am pointing out you have absolute freedom when you have nothing to lose and can’t stay where you are.

      • Crow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you are poor, wouldn’t it make more sense to be poor somewhere else? Starting over when you never had much would be my top priority rather than stay in these places.

        • Misconduct@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 months ago

          With what money? You can’t just travel across the country for free lol. Getting to another state alone is a good chunk of money for gas a lot of the time. Then what? Sleep in their car? Alone? In a place completely bereft of any kind of support or familiarity?

          • Crow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Why can’t you travel the country for free? Or at least bus tickets are very cheap.

            • Misconduct@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, you just don’t get it and I don’t know how to explain how difficult it would be to do that alone with nothing. I don’t know if it’s something that can be explained to someone that hasn’t struggled.

              • Crow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I’m literally speaking from experience. And I also don’t own a car because it’s a money sink. I left everything behind I couldn’t fit in a box and moved across my country because I figured if I was going to struggle anyway, it may as well be where the grass is green. And while I have left all my family support behind, I have actual social support. There is so much more to where you live than what you have.

                • Misconduct@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Are you a dude? I’m not asking this to be argumentative I just need you to understand that it is extremely different when you have to worry about if you’ll be molested or worse when you sleep. I’m not saying it isn’t hard for men to strike out on their own at all. I’m also absolutely not saying that men don’t also get assaulted. I promise, I know it can be so difficult for anyone. Women have so many additional hurdles on top of that. I was homeless at 17 and the amount of people that “helped me out” but then expected sexual favors in return was fucking gross. No Kevin, you don’t get a blow job because you brought me some stale ass donuts from your convenience store job ffs 🙄

                  I’ve been there too and the fact that men can just sleep on a bus stop, out in the open, in relative safety automatically gives them a privilege we simply don’t have. Women’s shelters can be great if you can find one with space. Even then some of them are grossly religious and as stifling as the situations these women want to escape from. A woman got kicked out of one of the shelters I stayed in because she had condoms in her dresser drawer. I guessing men don’t get kicked out of anywhere because someone found out that they might be having sex.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      those people are so incredibly brainwashed by conservatives, they will happily vote to their own detriment. but yay. fox news. free market. yay.

      • qooqie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Minorities and vulnerable populations are in the best position to not be brainwashed. And if they leave those states hopefully they can go to a state that respects them as humans

        • FraidyBear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Minorities in these places are typically facing poverty levels that most people in the US can’t imagine. How are they supposed to move when they can barely afford rent? As for the other women, the white women in these places genuinely don’t believe that these laws will affect them. There is this sense that they think that their adjacency to white men will prevent them from being treated the same as others, that somehow it will make them immune. They are getting a massive wakeup call that white men in power only care about other white men. It’s a tale as old as time. White women are and have always been our barrer to equality. Once things get bad enough for them they will jump on the side of minorities and equality again. They just don’t usually view themselves as one of us, they always think that this time will be different.

          • qooqie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah… I know. I just hope their lives can change for the better and they can exit these places. I just want people to have equal rights and be happy. It’s apparently asking a lot of religious old people, but fuck them

        • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          9 months ago

          How? How are they supposed to leave? I lived in southern Louisiana and I was desperately poor then. Nobody I knew could afford to leave.

          • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            9 months ago

            Whether we like it or not, it’s going to take widespread class solidarity and a generation of grassroots activism to undo this shit. The politically active will never give a shit about the politically inactive until they’re outnumbered. It sucks that people just trying to make ends meet have to start becoming grassroots activists on top of their already demanding jobs and lives, but rights were never freely given to the disenfranchised. They were taken.

          • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            reminds me of an old sam kinison bit regarding people who live in deserts and then suffer droughts. but agreed… those most in need of relocation are least capable.

      • systemglitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        The true detriment is a two party system. You are like a dog being thrown scraps by whichever party you vote for, and things are only getting worse while people continue to pick one side or the other and don’t overthrow the entire system they keep supporting.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          No, the true detriment is civic illiteracy and widespread apathy. If people voted in droves and stayed engaged in the decisions that affect their lives, the institutional power of political parties would be nullified. The parties are powerful specifically because most people don’t give a shit. There’s a vacuum, and the party apparatus fills it.

            • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              By starving millions of them? Because that’s exactly what transpired during most of those revolutions. And the long term outcomes have not turned out to be better for poor people than the American revolution was. Show me the ideal communist state that resulted.

              • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Revolutions often happen because of starvation. Not the other way around.

                And I can tell you this… Billionaires and their conservative minions are making many of us extremely hungry.

                • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Well they solved starvation by dramatically increasing it and then replaced old systems with new ones that have all those same old problems. So consider me unconvinced. I think we need to find a new way to change these systems that’s more resilient for the future

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Lol sure. So why try and improve things? You’ll only make it worse. Enjoy the scraps.

            • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              Please show me where I said to do nothing. Why don’t you try imagining new ways of improving things rather than repeating the mistakes of the past? Of the revolutions in the 18th-20th centuries, I think only the American revolution accomplished anything close to what it was intending. And that’s because it didn’t destroy all the existing institutions while in the process of implementing new ones.

              (Not that I agree with what the American revolution was intending, but we did get mostly what they set out to do without thousands of poor civilians starving to death in the process.)

              • krolden@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                The american revolution upheld slavery in America so yeah you’re not wrong.

                • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Our institutions are not the problem, our policies are the problem. I want to see a transition to UBI, but a dramatic overhaul that dismantled WIC and SNAP before we got UBI in place would be an unmitigated disaster for the very people we were intending to help.

                  It’s not the reform that I’m skeptical of. It’s the lust for revolutionary destruction as a path to reform that I’m skeptical of. It’s emotionally satisfying without regard to its actual efficacy in accomplishing the proposed reforms. Because history does not show us evidence that this works out well in the short nor the long run.

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I’m proposing a revolution entirely led by the people, as that is the only true kind of revolution. The people who would then rule themselves with no intermediaries. Real grassroots organisation.

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      We could move if we wanted to. We aren’t, at least right now, because we’d leave behind our entire social network. Even if we moved where we know people, they wouldn’t help as much with our two young children. I know and understand and accept that. They don’t have to help with our kids, but we’d lose the people who can. We’d lose our kids friends and the network we are building in the neighborhood, which of course can be rebuilt, but that’s also a consideration. I’d probably only see my sister once a year if that because she can’t leave the state due to a custody agreement. Funds would also be an issue.

      I also worry about too many democratic people leaving and making the state more red as a result and leaving behind those who can’t move, like my sister and her kids, who will suffer as a result of increasingly authoritarian laws. Some regressive politicians have outright said that it’s their goal to make it miserable for democratic and liberal people to force them to move, make the state redder, and thereby gain even more power.

    • kibiz0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Most Americans can’t afford a $500 emergency. Transplanting to a new state is off the table for a lot of people, especially women. If you have enough money to move, you probably also have enough money to take a weekend trip to get an abortion in a neighboring state.