PDA

View Full Version : Women's suffrage was apparently bad for the US.


Shadow Dragon
05-09-2012, 11:16 AM
A controversial clergyman and Fox News contributor has raised eyebrows and ire by delivering a recorded sermon in which he posited that women's suffrage was "one of the greatest mistakes" in American history and that women were "crazy."

Despite his shockingly misogynistic comments, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson was still invited to appear on Sean Hannity's popular Fox News program.

-Snip-

"I think one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote," the reverend continued. "We should have never turned this over to women. And these women are voting for the wrong people. They're voting in people who are evil who agree with them who are gonna take us down the pathway of destruction."

-Snip-

Hannity, who denies (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/sarah-palin-weighs-in-on-the-war-on-women.php) that there is a conservative "war on women," welcomed (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/01/kirsten-powers-confronts-jesse-lee-peterson-about-what-she-calls-his-misogynist-sermons/) Rev. Peterson on his show even after his incredible display of disdain for the opposite sex. But Fox host Kirsten Powers, who sat alongside Peterson during Hannity's "Great American Panel" segment which aired on May 1, called the clergyman out for his sermon.
http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-contributor-says-letting-women-vote-one-162600782.html

And here's the actually segment in its entirety:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLyy73HJwbM

So, you say women are raving lunatics and allowing them to vote is destroying the country and you get on a popular, nation wide "news" program. Sounds reasonable.:Shrug:

Zoombie
05-09-2012, 11:33 AM
Well, that's fucking disgusting and makes me want to vomit.

Archerbird
05-09-2012, 11:39 AM
That is scary. I'm gonna echo someone in another thread and say: wtf is going on in your country?

fireluxlou
05-09-2012, 11:50 AM
If you listen to the rest of his speech it gets even more vile.

Zoombie
05-09-2012, 12:22 PM
That is scary. I'm gonna echo someone in another thread and say: wtf is going on in your country?

The crazies are running scared, which makes them more crazy, vile and desperate.

Yorkist
05-09-2012, 12:38 PM
The crazies are running scared, which makes them more crazy, vile and desperate.

This, and also... I think our national identity is collapsing, due to globalism and the economy sucking - the American dream is getting harder and harder to believe in, and it's a narrative that we really, really want to believe in.

We look for someone to blame, and the other political party is the easiest one, and when that political party is associated with gender, race, religion, class, region, etc. - well, hatred and violence resulteth, in one way or another. I think it may be inevitable, as well as being really fucking scary.

WillSauger
05-09-2012, 01:20 PM
That's fox news. :Shrug:

fireluxlou
05-09-2012, 01:30 PM
and this January he opined that African-Americans should be sent "back on the plantation so they would understand the ethic of working."

"They need a good, hard education on what it is to work," he said.


O_O

areteus
05-09-2012, 01:37 PM
Where do you get these guys from? Is there a time tunnel under the Republican party heaquarters leading to the stone age?

Universal suffrage was one of the greatest political changes in history and one that has created the most good IMO. I am personally of the opinion that we also need to lower the voting age as a way of engaging more young people with the process.

Zoombie
05-09-2012, 02:09 PM
This, and also... I think our national identity is collapsing, due to globalism and the economy sucking the gummyment - the American dream is getting harder and harder to believe in, and it's a narrative that we really, really want to believe in.


I did this for no reason other than I have a sneaking suspicion it's true (though this is more based off an equally dear, equally non-factual narrative as the "American dream", so take that with a grain of salt.

And because it gave me an excuse to use the word gummyment.

Durn gummyment. Stickin 'er nose in our buisness. Took urr jorrrrrrbs.

Seriously, though, this guy is a nutcase. I'd love to give him what he wants: A community where women are treated as second class citizens. Suddenly, crime will go up, drunken disorderly will go up, poverty will go up...

10 days in 1904 would clear up a lot of these delusions. No, better yet, 1404.

eggs
05-09-2012, 03:34 PM
Seriously, though, this guy is a nutcase. I'd love to give him what he wants: A community where women are treated as second class citizens. Suddenly, crime will go up, drunken disorderly will go up, poverty will go up...


Are you insinuating that large and rowdy groups of women would spontaneously rise up across the nation and go on drunken crime sprees if they were to be deprived of the vote? Spending all of the household's money on debauchery and cooking dinner for no man? If so, please add me to the notification list. I'm in.

regdog
05-09-2012, 03:39 PM
Well, that's fucking disgusting and makes me want to vomit.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me

RichardGarfinkle
05-09-2012, 03:58 PM
Yup. No war on women here. Democrats and liberals and socialists made it all up.


:Headbang:

Seriously, I sometimes wonder if they're just contemptible in their thinking or contemptuous of the thinking of their audience.

Selah March
05-09-2012, 04:05 PM
Are you insinuating that large and rowdy groups of women would spontaneously rise up across the nation and go on drunken crime sprees if they were to be deprived of the vote? Spending all of the household's money on debauchery and cooking dinner for no man? If so, please add me to the notification list. I'm in.


+1

Alessandra Kelley
05-09-2012, 04:09 PM
Conservatives have been trying to undo the social reforms of the twentieth century for decades. This is just pushing the calendar back.

They've done a good number on Johnson's Great Society. Recently they've been ranting against and trying to undo Roosevelt's New Deal. This is just the logical progression.

Next would be dismantling Teddy Roosevelt's FDA. Who needs safety from tainted food anyway?

Alpha Echo
05-09-2012, 04:27 PM
Wow. I'm flabbergasted. WTF? Where does America come up with these assholes? How does someone, someone who's supposed to be educated and living in the 21st century, come up with this shit? How does it even cross their minds?

KateSmash
05-09-2012, 06:01 PM
*in best Professor Farnsworth voice* I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Perks
05-09-2012, 06:12 PM
Ha! That's fantastic. I must be in a weird mood, because the very Reverend quite made me laugh. Bring on the kooks. We need to air them out.

Perks
05-09-2012, 06:21 PM
Here's the sermon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NeFhA_sL38c#!

He's amazing.

Monkey
05-09-2012, 06:37 PM
How dare we women vote in the wrong people.

Pure evil, it is. Crazy evil.

In fact, my very vagina has made me so crazy evil I'm tempted to say some very bad things about a Reverend.

Snowstorm
05-09-2012, 06:59 PM
In fact, my very vagina has made me so crazy evil I'm tempted to say some very bad things about a Reverend.

Yeah, only what I have to offer will come out of a nearby orifice.

waylander
05-09-2012, 07:36 PM
Were there always this many nutters around only now the Interwebz has made them visible or are they increasing in number?

fireluxlou
05-09-2012, 07:44 PM
Were there always this many nutters around only now the Interwebz has made them visible or are they increasing in number?

No the internet hasn't made them visible. The media has. Fox News gave him a platform to air his views, the newspapers are running with it.

lorna_w
05-09-2012, 07:53 PM
Where does America come up with these assholes?

I'm so glad you asked! There's a factory outside of Durham, NC, also owned by Murdoch. Alas, there are no public tours.

How does it even cross their minds?

They look in a downwards direction and the urinal, I would imagine, feel shame and anger, and project it out into the world.

How does someone, someone who's supposed to be educated and living in the 21st century, come up with this shit?

Whoa, dude. Some major false assumptions there! They are not educated in any meaningful sense of the word and they live in an imaginary version of the early 19th century. Or, they are cleverly marketing to a niche, and it pays them well. It does not have anything to do, necessarily, with what they actually think. (see also, conservative anti-gay congressmen who have BDSM sex with teen boy prostitutes.)

Alpha Echo
05-09-2012, 07:59 PM
Whoa, dude. Some major false assumptions there! They are not educated in any meaningful sense of the word and they live in an imaginary version of the early 19th century. Or, they are cleverly marketing to a niche, and it pays them well. It does not have anything to do, necessarily, with what they actually think. (see also, conservative anti-gay congressmen who have BDSM sex with teen boy prostitutes.)

I know this. I do. I just don't understand it.

Alessandra Kelley
05-09-2012, 08:00 PM
After a little thought, it occurred to me that:

The Republicans have been passing law after law that harms women.

Women, including Republican women, object to this.

If they can't vote, who cares?

***

In other words, maybe this is an attempt to neutralize women's protests over Republicans defunding federal child care programs and women and infant care programs and Title V Maternal and Child Health Care Services Block Grants (http://www.childrenshealthfund.org/blog/defunding-health-care-reform-jeopordizes-well-being-americas-children), Virginia Republicans trying to pass a draconian vaginal probe law for abortion-seekers (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion _will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason .html), Texas Republicans actually PASSING that law (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/2011-abortion-sonogram-bill/tx-and-va-sonogram-bills-faced-different-challenge/), Congressional Republicans holding domestic violence laws hostage, (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/democrats-continue-to-accuse-gop-of-a-war-on-women/) trying to redefine rape victims legally as "accusers" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/georgia-lawmaker-redefine-rape-victims-accusers_n_818718.html), trying to legalize the murder of abortion doctors (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/south_dakota_abortion_killing_bill/), eliminating funding for family planning for poor people (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/gop-spending-plan-x-ing-out-title-x-family-planning-funds/), defunding Head Start (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-), and more and more too depressing to enumerate.

Romney says (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-attacks-obama-on-foreign-policy-women-s-issues-20120508) the "GOP War on Women" is a campaign ploy invented by Obama's team.

Monkey
05-09-2012, 08:01 PM
"Fair and Balanced" has come to mean that "both" sides of an issue--even when one is based on facts and the other is sheer nonsense--get to air their views and have a reporter nod and smile.

I think that's partially to blame.

But the internet is partially to blame, as well. People can easily seek out like-minded people, and they reverberate off one another. They can close out dissenting voices and egg each other on. They get more and more convinced of what they believe, and more vocal about it, and in many cases don't even realize how far out of the mainstream they've gotten.

On the other hand, I don't think we're actually moving backwards or that there are more of these people than there used to be. In my grandmother's generation, racism and misogyny were not only acceptable, but--at least where she grew up--desirable traits in a young white woman. Grandmother has moved on...but not everyone from her generation has.

There are new generations that have been taught from an early age that racism and misogyny was "how things were" back in "the good old days," the "golden days" where everything was good and the American Dream was alive and well. That those beliefs are good and proper and lead to a better society. Some of those people want to put us back there...but they are a small part of the population and shrinking. They have to cope with the fact that not only are we NOT going back there, but the vast majority of our kids--our future--repudiate that bigotry.

And now the gays want rights, too!

I honestly believe what we're witnessing is the last vestiges of acceptable bigotries. The voices we're hearing are made louder by their echos (as in dedicated internet forums where dissent is not tolerated) and by the megaphones given to them by certain news outlets, but just because they're louder doesn't mean there are more of them.

Monkey
05-09-2012, 08:05 PM
After a little thought, it occurred to me that:

The Republicans have been passing law after law that harms women.

Women, including Republican women, object to this.

If they can't vote, who cares?

***

In other words, maybe this is an attempt to neutralize women's protests over Republicans defunding federal child care programs and women and infant care programs and Title V Maternal and Child Health Care Services Block Grants (http://www.childrenshealthfund.org/blog/defunding-health-care-reform-jeopordizes-well-being-americas-children), Virginia Republicans trying to pass a draconian vaginal probe law for abortion-seekers (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion _will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason .html), Texas Republicans actually PASSING that law (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/2011-abortion-sonogram-bill/tx-and-va-sonogram-bills-faced-different-challenge/), Congressional Republicans holding domestic violence laws hostage, (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/democrats-continue-to-accuse-gop-of-a-war-on-women/) trying to redefine rape victims legally as "accusers" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/georgia-lawmaker-redefine-rape-victims-accusers_n_818718.html), trying to legalize the murder of abortion doctors (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/south_dakota_abortion_killing_bill/), eliminating funding for family planning for poor people (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/gop-spending-plan-x-ing-out-title-x-family-planning-funds/), defunding Head Start (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-), and more and more too depressing to enumerate.

Romney says (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-attacks-obama-on-foreign-policy-women-s-issues-20120508) the "GOP War on Women" is a campaign ploy invented by Obama's team.

Good point. If your goal is to put women back in what you presume to be their place, and they're objecting to the legislation that will do so, clearly you need to rescind their right to vote. Otherwise, they'll vote for the wrong people. People that agree with them. And that's crazy/evil.

RichardGarfinkle
05-09-2012, 08:12 PM
Fortunately, repealing suffrage would take a constitutional amendment. It's hard to see many members of the House or the Senate thinking this would be a safe vote.

Jersey Chick
05-09-2012, 08:32 PM
The sad thing is, nonsense like this doesn't even surprise me any longer. All I can think is, it's the fall of America and I hate that I have a front row seat to it.

Disgusting.

Kaiser-Kun
05-09-2012, 08:45 PM
And because it gave me an excuse to use the word gummyment.

Durn gummyment.

I caught a photo of their latest meeting. (http://digitaljournal.com/img/5/1/6/1/1/2/i/9/9/1/o/gummy_bears_on_napkin.jpg)

Shadow_Ferret
05-09-2012, 08:57 PM
His words scare me. The whole movement backwards, erasing worker, women, minority, and civil rights scares me. We need to start pushing back. Hard.

Monkey
05-09-2012, 09:03 PM
His words scare me. The whole movement backwards, erasing worker, women, minority, and civil rights scares me. We need to start pushing back. Hard.

Agreed.

I don't think these people are nearly as large a contingent as they appear, but distressingly many of them are in positions of power or influence. They've been in their little echo chambers too long, and the megaphones handed to them by the media make them feel empowered and righteous. The only way to handle them is to give 'em a little backlash.

Make that a lot. :D

Alpha Echo
05-09-2012, 09:17 PM
I just saw this (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/rush-babes-america-limbaugh-launches-facebook-campaign-conservative-144351284.html).

In an effort to counter the National Organization for Women (http://www.now.org/)'s campaign against him (http://enoughrush.org/), Rush Limbaugh has launched "Rush Babes for America (http://www.facebook.com/RushBabesforAmerica)," a Facebook page dedicated to "the millions of conservative women who know what they believe in: family, American values and not being told by faux feminist groups how to think."


"I've been tired for a long time of these faux female groups, which are really nothing but groups of liberals," Limbaugh said on his radio show on Tuesday. "The National Organization for Women is not a female organization. It's a liberal organization disguised as a group that's interested in the rights of women. These groups, they happen to have 'woman' or 'women' in their names, and they're claiming to represent all women. And in reality, they represent a tiny number of highly-agitated activist types. They're basically miserable and unhappy women, for whatever reason."

Alessandra Kelley
05-09-2012, 09:32 PM
I just saw this (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/rush-babes-america-limbaugh-launches-facebook-campaign-conservative-144351284.html).

"Rush Babes for America," huh? Classy logo, reminds me of the seated woman silhouette popular on truck windshields.

Soooo ... is Rush Limbaugh hoping that attractive young Republican women will post their pictures by his sweaty, oily old visage?

My inner teenage girl is going "Ewwwwwww" right now.

Kaiser-Kun
05-09-2012, 09:42 PM
There's several kinds of wrong with that, and I find all of them repulsive.

Reminds me of the "assistant" who appeared in the mexican presidential candidates' debate last week. No, really. In a political debate. (http://eleconomista.com.mx/files/imagecache/nota_completa/julia_orayen_edecan_debate.jpg)

Alpha Echo
05-09-2012, 09:45 PM
"Rush Babes for America," huh? Classy logo, reminds me of the seated woman silhouette popular on truck windshields.

Soooo ... is Rush Limbaugh hoping that attractive young Republican women will post their pictures by his sweaty, oily old visage?

My inner teenage girl is going "Ewwwwwww" right now.

Haha. I know, right? I couldn't believe he's actually calling it "Rush BABES.." Really? Ew!

And what woman in her right mind...?

Ah, that's it right there, isn't it? Those women aren't in their right minds.

Ew.

kayleamay
05-09-2012, 09:56 PM
Apparently, he's searching out those good and decent women. You know, the ones that don't want to be "told by faux feminist groups how to think"...because they'd prefer have mysogynistic conservative groups tell them how to think.

:sarcasm


Barf.

maxmordon
05-09-2012, 10:09 PM
I think that only proves how out-of-touch men like Rush Limbaugh (and many others like him) are.

I found opinions like this still existing around so depressing. Especially taking account how some female Christian leaders like Frances Willard and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were foundamental on having the Nineteen Amendment passed on the US.

regdog
05-09-2012, 10:21 PM
Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.
Dr White after examining Alice Paul

Alessandra Kelley
05-09-2012, 10:29 PM
I know, because there's nothing wrong with a multi-year and hundreds of thousands of dollars' process of firing a teacher (http://reason.com/assets/db/12639308918768.pdf).

I'm sorry? What does that have to do with women's suffrage?

virtue_summer
05-09-2012, 10:34 PM
I'm sorry? What does that have to do with women's suffrage?
I was just about to ask that.

Monkey
05-09-2012, 10:46 PM
I know, because there's nothing wrong with a multi-year and hundreds of thousands of dollars' process of firing a teacher (http://reason.com/assets/db/12639308918768.pdf).

Not sure what this has to do with the thread, other than one person included worker's rights...even then...

But...sigh. I'll bite.

Before a teacher has tenure, they're pretty easy to fire. In their first year or two, they're considered "probationary" and can be gotten rid of easily. Only after a teacher has been there for 5 years without getting into trouble (or three, if your school offered them tenure early), can they have tenure.

So this chart STARTS with a teacher who has been working 3-5 years without getting into trouble, and who has not committed a major offense that warrants firing on the spot.

The entire first third of the first page (there are two) says that within 3 months of an offense, an administrator has to write it down, show the write-up to the teacher, and give them a chance to respond. The write-up stays in the teacher's file.

What it doesn't say is that enough such write-ups are grounds for firing. At my husband's school, "enough" means 3 in a given year.

After that, the rest it is entirely concerned with how a teacher may appeal that decision. First, there is an internal appeal, and after that, they have to take it to court.

The chart is long because it includes various options the teacher has, it breaks single sentences into multiple pictures, and it puts in pictures for things like, "A stenographer will transcribe the proceedings," and "What happens after the hearing?"

In short, this is a poorly-done propaganda piece unrelated to the thread.

MacAllister
05-09-2012, 11:09 PM
Yeah. It's off-topic, agenda-driven, and now it's deleted. It's also not the first time you've done this, FalconMage. I do suggest you don't do it again, though.

If you can't participate and contribute to the conversation in good faith, you're excused from participating at all.

FalconMage
05-09-2012, 11:35 PM
I thought it *was* good faith. Blanket accusations at Republicans because a stupid pastor was interviewed, that's OK, but replying to those blanket accusations, that's out?

I don't see what I did wrong.

Jcomp
05-09-2012, 11:50 PM
Were there always this many nutters around only now the Interwebz has made them visible or are they increasing in number?

The bolded part is true. In fact, for probably the better part of human civilization, being a "nutter" in one form or another was more openly accepted by a far wider range of society than it is now.

backslashbaby
05-10-2012, 12:26 AM
Anderson Cooper has nearly worn out his tape on that whacko pastor from NC. He even showed that as his story on the very important Amendment One vote, instead of concentrating on all of the people who could have given reasoned positions on what is going on.

I think it's wrong of the news to show sensationalistic bullshit as if they were the Jerry Springer show. It gives the crazies the feeling that they have support, too, or are much more normal than they really are.

It's the same trick the Daily Fail uses to get readers. Don't give it the attention that it doesn't deserve.

clintl
05-10-2012, 12:32 AM
Conservatives have been trying to undo the social reforms of the twentieth century for decades. This is just pushing the calendar back.

They've done a good number on Johnson's Great Society. Recently they've been ranting against and trying to undo Roosevelt's New Deal. This is just the logical progression.

Next would be dismantling Teddy Roosevelt's FDA. Who needs safety from tainted food anyway?

Kids' stuff. You're forgetting about those guys in New Hampshire who want the Magna Carta cited when new bills are introduced.

Opty
05-10-2012, 12:34 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-contributor-says-letting-women-vote-one-162600782.html

And here's the actually segment in its entirety:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLyy73HJwbM

So, you say women are raving lunatics and allowing them to vote is destroying the country and you get on a popular, nation wide "news" program. Sounds reasonable.:Shrug:

Why am I not surprised that Hannity admits to being a board member of this nutjob's "Bond Action" organization?

The Reverend has been on Hannity's joke of a show a few times before.

As they say, birds of a feather...

Jersey Chick
05-10-2012, 12:34 AM
Amen - take away the cameras and the press and the crazy slithers back under its rock.

You know what really scares me? Is now There are a number of dipshits scratching their chins, saying, "I think he's on to something! That's it - the wimmins and their votes are the root of all eeeevillll."

Make the crazy stop. I can't stand it anymore.

muravyets
05-10-2012, 04:27 AM
Yup. No war on women here. Democrats and liberals and socialists made it all up.


:Headbang:

Seriously, I sometimes wonder if they're just contemptible in their thinking or contemptuous of the thinking of their audience.
I sometimes wonder if they're kidding, if this has all been an elaborate practical joke.

I mean take the entire rightwing platform all together -- It's hard to find anyone they don't hate. They present, as proud as toddlers showing mommy their first poopy inside the toilet bowl, budget proposals that openly and specifically plan to stop feeding children and the poor and sick so that they can give that money to billionaires instead. They proclaim that women are too crazy to vote and should be overjoyed to have been chosen by God to be raped and made pregnant. It just goes on and on and on. They went from bigoted to corrupt to crazy and they seem finally to be reaching the limit of complete bullshit.

muravyets
05-10-2012, 04:32 AM
After a little thought, it occurred to me that:

The Republicans have been passing law after law that harms women.

Women, including Republican women, object to this.

If they can't vote, who cares?

***

In other words, maybe this is an attempt to neutralize women's protests over Republicans defunding federal child care programs and women and infant care programs and Title V Maternal and Child Health Care Services Block Grants (http://www.childrenshealthfund.org/blog/defunding-health-care-reform-jeopordizes-well-being-americas-children), Virginia Republicans trying to pass a draconian vaginal probe law for abortion-seekers (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion _will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason .html), Texas Republicans actually PASSING that law (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/2011-abortion-sonogram-bill/tx-and-va-sonogram-bills-faced-different-challenge/), Congressional Republicans holding domestic violence laws hostage, (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/democrats-continue-to-accuse-gop-of-a-war-on-women/) trying to redefine rape victims legally as "accusers" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/georgia-lawmaker-redefine-rape-victims-accusers_n_818718.html), trying to legalize the murder of abortion doctors (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/south_dakota_abortion_killing_bill/), eliminating funding for family planning for poor people (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/gop-spending-plan-x-ing-out-title-x-family-planning-funds/), defunding Head Start (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-), and more and more too depressing to enumerate.

Romney says (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-attacks-obama-on-foreign-policy-women-s-issues-20120508) the "GOP War on Women" is a campaign ploy invented by Obama's team.
Maybe they should have thought to get women's suffrage repealed before they started stripping us of the rest of our rights. As it is, we could still actually stop them from doing this. I have often said our only hope against these bastards is that they are as dumb as they are vicious.

Manuel Royal
05-10-2012, 04:58 AM
The consequences of women's suffrage have been a mixed bag. (One of them being Prohibition.) But that's true when you recognize any kind of civil rights; it's a moral imperative that you do so, but there's no guarantee people won't use their rights to do stuff you don't like.

Peterson's idiotic statements don't seem that far out, if you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Women are chattel; slavery is okay as long as you treat your slaves in a certain way; and Yahweh just might give you a greenlight on genocide. If somebody truly, fanatically believes in the Bible, this stuff isn't surprising.

Of course, if you're not of that religion, or not a Biblical literalist, that seems crazy, and goes against millennia of social progress. We're always hearing from idiots who think our system of laws is based on Biblical principles; the fact is, most of the real advances have taken us further away from the dictates of ancient holy books.

We live in a time when you can spout off the craziest bullshit you can think of, and still get an audience as if you were someone to be taken seriously. Until recently, I rarely heard something in the public arena that I thought genuinely qualified as misogyny; but lately, I've been hearing stuff that sounds like something from "The Screwfly Solution".

Yorkist
05-10-2012, 05:15 AM
Maybe they should have thought to get women's suffrage repealed before they started stripping us of the rest of our rights. As it is, we could still actually stop them from doing this. I have often said our only hope against these bastards is that they are as dumb as they are vicious.

Unfortunately, I don't think they are that dumb. Right now the right is trying to change the narrative to the "real" war on women being all the female fetuses that get aborted. There are bills in some state legislatures right now forbidding abortion based on sex discrimination.

There are a few cultures where this is practiced, and occasionally people from those cultures make it over to the U.S., but the causes are social and economic and relate to women being seen as lesser in society - less socially valuable, less economically productive, etc. Of course, seeing women as babymaking chattel who the male-dominated government needs to make reproductive decisions for is just a less extreme version of these same factors, but as long as this narrative aligns with yours and what's culturally acceptable to say or think at the moment, I think it'll work for you. (General "you.")

Peterson's idiotic statements don't seem that far out, if you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Women are chattel; slavery is okay as long as you treat your slaves in a certain way; and Yahweh just might give you a greenlight on genocide. If somebody truly, fanatically believes in the Bible, this stuff isn't surprising.

Of course, if you're not of that religion, or not a Biblical literalist, that seems crazy, and goes against millennia of social progress.

Good post, but I don't get these people. I've read the Bible (most of it, skipping the boring parts, and all the "begats," etc.) twice-ish. It's been a long time, but the impressions I got from it are more about forgiving people for their faults, loving your neighbor, not being greedy, not being prideful, stuff like that. Nothing Jesus ever said smacked of misogyny. Nothing Jesus ever said indicated that gay marriage was on the priority list. Not that I can recall, anyway.

The literalist stuff doesn't make sense to me. The most important books in the Bible are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, IMO. I mean, I love the Song of Solomon personally but I don't think it's really the point.

Opty
05-10-2012, 06:09 AM
Unfortunately, IMO, Christianity seems by and large to be more based on Paul's teachings than Jesus's. The New Testament itself contains only 4 books (the synoptic Gospels) which contain Jesus' words (e.g. Love thy neighbor, Golden Rule, turn the other cheek, etc.). However, it contains 13 (or 14 if he wrote Hebrews) with Paul's teachings (e.g. Women keep silent in the church, be submissive, not permitted to hold dominion over a man, slaves be obedient to your masters, etc.).

There's an indelible disconnect between what those two guys taught and, unfortunately, it seems the guy who started Christianity has had historically less impact on the doctrine of its more fundamentalist conservative followers. And, many current Republican and Tea Party politicians seem to be in that group, as is evidenced by their baleful social agenda.

Xelebes
05-10-2012, 06:49 AM
Unfortunately, IMO, Christianity seems by and large to be more based on Paul's teachings than Jesus's. The New Testament itself contains only 4 books (the synoptic Gospels) which contain Jesus' words (e.g. Love thy neighbor, Golden Rule, turn the other cheek, etc.). However, it contains 13 (or 14 if he wrote Hebrews) with Paul's teachings (e.g. Women keep silent in the church, be submissive, not permitted to hold dominion over a man, slaves be obedient to your masters, etc.).

There's an indelible disconnect between what those two guys taught and, unfortunately, it seems the guy who started Christianity has had historically less impact on the doctrine of its more fundamentalist conservative followers. And, many current Republican and Tea Party politicians seem to be in that group, as is evidenced by their baleful social agenda.

My parents favourite book in the Bible was Romans because "it was the book that properly described a Christian."

The name of the book is Romans. . .

clintl
05-10-2012, 07:04 AM
A great deal of what made it into the New Testament was selected to serve the political purposes of Constantine. That's why there's so much Paul, and so little Jesus. Paul's teaching are much more in accord with the needs of absolute monarchs.

Yorkist
05-10-2012, 07:14 AM
My parents favourite book in the Bible was Romans because "it was the book that properly described a Christian."

The name of the book is Romans. . .

ROFL, the irony. Thanks for this.

A great deal of what made it into the New Testament was selected to serve the political purposes of Constantine. That's why there's so much Paul, and so little Jesus. Paul's teaching are much more in accord with the needs of absolute monarchs.

What I was thinking is that, perhaps, the moneyed interests have, over time, manipulated and distorted the message for the population for the sake of their ends. Jesus talks a few times explicitly about how greed is bad, right? Yet the rise of religious social conservatism was with Reagan, who called greed good.

I mean, people can see it in different ways that reflect their narratives - I'm not saying that you have to have liberal ideas of government to be a Christian or anything. But painting greed as a virtue and getting so bent out of shape in judging others' lifestyle choices seems directly antithetical to everything I remember Jesus ever talking about. Something about rich men and heaven and needles and camels? You're gonna obsess about a couple of lines about teh gay or the wimmins in boring chapters that barely get read and completely ignore the gist of the whole thing?

Chrissy
05-10-2012, 07:51 AM
Good post, but I don't get these people. I've read the Bible (most of it, skipping the boring parts, and all the "begats," etc.) twice-ish. It's been a long time, but the impressions I got from it are more about forgiving people for their faults, loving your neighbor, not being greedy, not being prideful, stuff like that. Nothing Jesus ever said smacked of misogyny. Nothing Jesus ever said indicated that gay marriage was on the priority list. Not that I can recall, anyway.

+1

Unfortunately, IMO, Christianity seems by and large to be more based on Paul's teachings than Jesus's. The New Testament itself contains only 4 books (the synoptic Gospels) which contain Jesus' words (e.g. Love thy neighbor, Golden Rule, turn the other cheek, etc.). However, it contains 13 (or 14 if he wrote Hebrews) with Paul's teachings (e.g. Women keep silent in the church, be submissive, not permitted to hold dominion over a man, slaves be obedient to your masters, etc.).

There's an indelible disconnect between what those two guys taught and, unfortunately, it seems the guy who started Christianity has had historically less impact on the doctrine of its more fundamentalist conservative followers. And, many current Republican and Tea Party politicians seem to be in that group, as is evidenced by their baleful social agenda.

+1


= double whammy!

blacbird
05-10-2012, 08:12 AM
I mean take the entire rightwing platform all together -- It's hard to find anyone they don't hate. They present, as proud as toddlers showing mommy their first poopy inside the toilet bowl, budget proposals that openly and specifically plan to stop feeding children and the poor and sick so that they can give that money to billionaires instead. They proclaim that women are too crazy to vote and should be overjoyed to have been chosen by God to be raped and made pregnant. It just goes on and on and on. They went from bigoted to corrupt to crazy and they seem finally to be reaching the limit of complete bullshit.

Not so sure about the last statement, but I'm happy a guy as dumb as Sean Hannity has the platform to reveal these people on TV. I get the sense sometimes that way too many folks are of the opinion that these types are extinct, or at least, very rare. THEY AREN'T. They are everydamnwhere in this nation, and they have a big following. Just look at that NC preacher, Harris, who made news a week ago by advocating punching the queer of out four-year-olds, and got raucous laughter and applause from his churchful of acolytes.

caw

FalconMage
05-10-2012, 09:00 AM
I'm sorry? What does that have to do with women's suffrage?
Maybe not much. Maybe as much as the "amount" of Jesus in the New Testament.

Opty
05-10-2012, 09:06 AM
Maybe not much. Maybe as much as the "amount" of Jesus in the New Testament.

Maybe less.

kayleamay
05-10-2012, 09:10 AM
Maybe not much. Maybe as much as the "amount" of Jesus in the New Testament.

If Republicans were passing legislation based on the tenure policies of the public school systems, that would almost make sense.

But, wait! They're not.

Yorkist
05-10-2012, 09:20 AM
Maybe not much. Maybe as much as the "amount" of Jesus in the New Testament.

Um. The dude in the OP is a preacher...? Who advocated for the dissolution of women's suffrage during a sermon?

muravyets
05-10-2012, 09:54 AM
Not so sure about the last statement, but I'm happy a guy as dumb as Sean Hannity has the platform to reveal these people on TV. I get the sense sometimes that way too many folks are of the opinion that these types are extinct, or at least, very rare. THEY AREN'T. They are everydamnwhere in this nation, and they have a big following. Just look at that NC preacher, Harris, who made news a week ago by advocating punching the queer of out four-year-olds, and got raucous laughter and applause from his churchful of acolytes.

caw
I don't really think they've reached their limit, either. And I don't think they're joking. I only wish they were. What I meant was just that they've dropped any pretense at caring how their arguments sound. They are no longer dressing up their bullshit as anything else, not even gilding it with the thinnest coating of concern-trolling anymore.

I have always believed that these people represent a large minority in the US, and that they have been with us since colonial times. Not every colonist came here seeking freedom. Some came seeking a dominion of their own they could remake to their own specifications. There have always been people in the US who do not really believe in equality, who don't even really believe in democracy. But it was the democratic egalitarians who fought and won the revolution. These people's ideological forebears probably never would have rebelled against the British crown because they believed in the divine authority of kings. It is the Kingdom of Heaven, after all, not the Republic of Heaven, and if things are to be done on earth as they are in heaven, well...

So it was the opposition that set this nation up with a list of rules and rights that some very well established and connected people here never agreed with. I don't think it would be strange at all for like-minded people among later generations to have carried on the tradition. Fortunately for us until now, these people have always felt the main body of Americans as well as US law and government are their enemies -- their philosophical, political and spiritual enemies -- and in their alienation, they largely opted out of the whole political show. So in answer to the question posed earlier, they've always been here, but they only rarely open their mouths in public. Sadly, this is one of those rare times.

Zoombie
05-10-2012, 10:11 AM
I have always believed that these people represent a large minority in the US, and that they have been with us since colonial times. Not every colonist came here seeking freedom. Some came seeking a dominion of their own they could remake to their own specifications. There have always been people in the US who do not really believe in equality, who don't even really believe in democracy. But it was the democratic egalitarians who fought and won the revolution. These people's ideological forebears probably never would have rebelled against the British crown because they believed in the divine authority of kings. It is the Kingdom of Heaven, after all, not the Republic of Heaven, and if things are to be done on earth as they are in heaven, well...



Our first colonists were puritans. Or, as I call them: ABSOLUTELY RAVING NUTS. I've read their early writing and they're some of the most chillingly disturbed and creepy writings I've ever read because they absolutely believed every single thing they wrote down. Which is the scariest thing of all.

I still remember this account of a colonial woman whose house and town was sacked by Native Americans. She was kidnapped and taken prisoner and saw three of her children killed in-front of her one by one...and do you know what almost every single sentence ended with?

"And thus it happened due to God's will, praise god!"

And the creepy thing is the first in settlers always leave a disproportionately large impact on the culture of the area, with each succeeding wave of immigration having diminishing returns. Hence why Chinese food and bits of the Chinese languages have permeated our culture, but we don't have the same concept of filial piety (or whatever it is that modern China has now-a-days).

You can see this kind of puritanical thinking in our views on sex, punishment, and other sundry weirdness.

As my dad said, "Australia was lucky...they just got the convicts and thieves."

MacAllister
05-10-2012, 10:21 AM
Our first colonists were puritans. Or, as I call them: ABSOLUTELY RAVING NUTS. I've read their early writing and they're some of the most chillingly disturbed and creepy writings I've ever read because they absolutely believed every single thing they wrote down. Which is the scariest thing of all.


Well, but don't forget about the influence the Cavaliers had on the American Character (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2207607?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100787831191).

It's really pretty amazing that we're STILL fighting the same culture wars, centuries later.

Zoombie
05-10-2012, 10:24 AM
Oooh, I haven't read that!

Right, I forgot to add this to my post: This is all stuff I learned in a literature class, mostly by reading poetry, essays, novellas and so on written by early Americans (ranging from early Puritans, Melville, and the half-mad, half-insane collection of anarchists, libertines, authoritarians and republicans who wrote our constitution).

So...grain of salt and all that.

muravyets
05-10-2012, 10:25 AM
Our first colonists were puritans. Or, as I call them: ABSOLUTELY RAVING NUTS. I've read their early writing and they're some of the most chillingly disturbed and creepy writings I've ever read because they absolutely believed every single thing they wrote down. Which is the scariest thing of all.

I still remember this account of a colonial woman whose house and town was sacked by Native Americans. She was kidnapped and taken prisoner and saw three of her children killed in-front of her one by one...and do you know what almost every single sentence ended with?

"And thus it happened due to God's will, praise god!"

And the creepy thing is the first in settlers always leave a disproportionately large impact on the culture of the area, with each succeeding wave of immigration having diminishing returns. Hence why Chinese food and bits of the Chinese languages have permeated our culture, but we don't have the same concept of filial piety (or whatever it is that modern China has now-a-days).

You can see this kind of puritanical thinking in our views on sex, punishment, and other sundry weirdness.

As my dad said, "Australia was lucky...they just got the convicts and thieves."
That's a bit over-simplified, but essentially, yeah, they're who I was talking about.

There were many shades of "Puritan" and "Calvinist." Technically, the Quakers are a spin-off of Calvinism and so are the Congregationalists who, nowadays, are one of the first American churches to marry same-sex couples, with or without state recognition, and are vanguards in the fight for civil rights for gays, women and immigrants (though they, too, have their conservatives who resist that liberalism). But such churches were never part of the Scarlet Letter set that you're referring to, not even back in the colonial day.

Amusing side note: Nathaniel Hawthorne, Salem-resident author of The Scarlet Letter, is a direct descendent of the Judge John Hathorne who tortured and hanged the victims of the Salem Witch Trials. Nathaniel may even have changed the spelling of his name because he was so disgusted by what his ancestor had done. Link (http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/saxon-salem/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=salem/texts/names.xml&style=salem/xsl/dynaxml.xsl&group.num=all&mbio.num=mb14&clear-stylesheet-cache=yes). I've always interpreted Hawthorne's stories to be about the corrupting evil of hypocrisy, particularly The Scarlet Letter. Gosh, could that also be a consistent trend with people like the OP pastor, Rick Santorum, etc, etc, from the 17th century down to the present day, right alongside loud, public religiosity -- rampant hypocrisy that wraps itself in the mantle of God while tearing other people's lives apart for profit?

In any event, I agree with you about the impact of the founding culture on all that come later. We've always been a hard divide between progressive and regressive, and never the 'twain shall meet.

muravyets
05-10-2012, 10:36 AM
Well, but don't forget about the influence the Cavaliers had on the American Character (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2207607?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100787831191).

It's really pretty amazing that we're STILL fighting the same culture wars, centuries later.
I'll have to read that one, too.

And Zoombie, if you have a lot of free time, try reading Kevin Phillips' The Cousins' Wars, about the same subject and linking it through to modern American politics. It's only the hugest book I've chipped away at in many a year -- hard slogging and far from perfect in presentation, but it does offer a lot of insight into the history. Here's NYT review of it (http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/02/07/reviews/990207.07brookht.html).

Mharvey
05-10-2012, 11:08 AM
No the internet hasn't made them visible. The media has. Fox News gave him a platform to air his views, the newspapers are running with it.

It's like the American Idol effect. They're looking for anyone who is either extremely brilliant or mind-numbingly moronic to stick a microphone in front of and sing a song that will either entertain or offend people. So long as either happens, so do ratings. Ratings = Money.

Even addressing this imbecile's comments would be like scraping a wad of heavily chewed gum off the bottom of my boot with my barehand.

RichardGarfinkle
05-10-2012, 01:59 PM
Well, but don't forget about the influence the Cavaliers had on the American Character (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2207607?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100787831191).

It's really pretty amazing that we're STILL fighting the same culture wars, centuries later.

To add to this. Here's the charter for the Colony of Maryland. Notice that the planned use of the colony was feudal in structure.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ma01.asp

By the way, the charter was, I gather drafted by the political philosopher John Locke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
http://classicliberal.tripod.com/locke/

RichardGarfinkle
05-10-2012, 02:21 PM
In any event, I agree with you about the impact of the founding culture on all that come later. We've always been a hard divide between progressive and regressive, and never the 'twain shall meet.

Here's the scary part: The Puritans in their own minds ware progressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan

They actually valued personal belief (within acceptable narrow limits) as opposed to Monarchially imposed state beliefs. They still thought the state should enforce religious orthodoxy, but they believed in the right of the individual to read the Bible and form their own views.

Progressive and regressive are relative. Do you look forward thinking that things can be made better if you change certain aspects of them, or do you look back at earlier times and see what you think would be better if one returned to them.

Furthermore, even within these categories there is a broad spectrum of possibilities. Since progressive selects from possible futures every such future can be seen as progress. Since regress selects from real or imagined pasts, regress has a broad spectrum of possible choices as well.

I'm pretty progressive on most social issues, but
I'm regressive on many matters of architecture, painting, sculpture, and poetry.

To some extent I think that progressive and regressive are distractions. The thing that makes the preacher in the OP a !@#R#@#$$#@@%# isn't his regressiveness, it's his total disregard for the lives of the women he thinks should be returned to chattel status because they don't vote the way he wants them to.

backslashbaby
05-11-2012, 01:32 AM
It's like the American Idol effect. They're looking for anyone who is either extremely brilliant or mind-numbingly moronic to stick a microphone in front of and sing a song that will either entertain or offend people. So long as either happens, so do ratings. Ratings = Money.

Even addressing this imbecile's comments would be like scraping a wad of heavily chewed gum off the bottom of my boot with my barehand.

There ya go!


As far as early US history, I researched the branch of my family that ended up in the land I now live on, and it's an early Quaker branch from right near the Jamestown settlement. I didn't know much about the Quakers, even though a local college has them as a mascot, lol (a Quaker school, not like Indian mascots).

Very locally, at least, the Quakers were outstanding against slavery. My Civil War-era relatives (one family) bought slaves to free them, which had to be downright dangerous in the South.

I'm basically just agreeing with muravyets, but it's interesting to see the tangible records leading to one's own history. I've had lots of friends go to the Quaker university, and I never knew the local history of the region.

We did marry a lot of cousins, though. My dad's side of the family is easy to research because of all of the religious cousin-marrying (Moravians did it, too, and that's my other heritage for Dad)! So much for that Southern stereotype ;)

Bookewyrme
05-11-2012, 04:28 AM
What I don't get is how he thinks this repeal of rights would come about without a really serious, and probably quite violent at times, fight.

I'm a non-confrontational, almost pacifistic woman, but my first reaction on reading that story the other day was "You can wrench my voting rights out of my cold dead hands, mister." I'm the third generation of woman in my family who was born and raised with the right to vote. In some families, women my age would be the fourth, or even fifth generation with that right. I can't imagine many women, even conservative women, would sign on to any repeal effort. Not to mention all the women in elected positions, who would be out of power suddenly.

Seriously, the longer I think about this guy, the more I wonder if perhaps he's not a candidate for jacket's with no sleeves and a room with padded walls. Because only someone with a seriously skewed view of reality would think this was even a possibility.

Maybe I'm too optimistic about my fellow ladies, though. I dunno.