Women's suffrage was apparently bad for the US.

"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.

Alessandra Kelley said:

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, Virginia Republicans trying to pass a draconian vaginal probe law for abortion-seekers, Texas Republicans actually PASSING that law, Congressional Republicans holding domestic violence laws hostage, trying to redefine rape victims legally as "accusers", trying to legalize the murder of abortion doctors, eliminating funding for family planning for poor people, defunding Head Start, and more and more too depressing to enumerate.

Romney says the "GOP War on Women" is a campaign ploy invented by Obama's team.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Zoombie said:

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

Durn gummyment.

Click to expand...

I caught a photo of their latest meeting.

His words scare me. The whole movement backwards, erasing worker, women, minority, and civil rights scares me. We need to start pushing back. Hard.

Shadow_Ferret said:

His words scare me. The whole movement backwards, erasing worker, women, minority, and civil rights scares me. We need to start pushing back. Hard.

Click to expand...

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.

I just saw this.

In an effort to counter the National Organization for Women's campaign against him, Rush Limbaugh has launched "Rush Babes for America," 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."

Click to expand...

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.

Alessandra Kelley said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.




Barf.

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.

Alessandra Kelley said:

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

Click to expand...

I was just about to ask that.

FalconMage said:

I know, because there's nothing wrong with a multi-year and hundreds of thousands of dollars' process of firing a teacher.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

waylander said:

Were there always this many nutters around only now the Interwebz has made them visible or are they increasing in number?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Alessandra Kelley said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Shadow Dragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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.