Only if you're not listening through your shiny new "Both Sides Make Appallingly Ignorant Statements So I Can Totally Disregard Any Pattern of Misogyny/Racism/WTFery in MY Party" Earphones. (As seen on TV! Patent pending.)
GOP/TEA PARTY group leader: -- We should never have let woman vote!
- Thread starter Maxinquaye
- Start date
Only if you're not listening through your shiny new "Both Sides Make Appallingly Ignorant Statements So I Can Totally Disregard Any Pattern of Misogyny/Racism/WTFery in MY Party" Earphones. (As seen on TV! Patent pending.)
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
Well, you seem to have already accepted the existence if the pattern, so was your question rhetorical?
Regardless, the OP focuses on a specific idea--as does the title--and there is no evidence of that specific idea being repeated and/or accepted by the GOP.
You want to generalize about "women as the enemy"? That's fine. Set the parameters, offer the evidence, draw a conclusion. Saying "that belief system seems to permeate the GOP" is just an opinion. And in my view, it's tough to square with the growth of women leaders in the GOP.
I'll accept that--between the two parties--there's an awful lot more open cavemen-types in the GOP than in the Democratic Party (though many of the specific attacks from the left on prominent women in the GOP--Palin, Bachmann, Rice--seem to flow from a similar mindset). But that doesn't mean the majority of GOP membership feels the same way. It doesn't mean the GOP--as a whole--feels that way.
Of course. If only the feeeeeeeeelings of the average GOP party member counted for as much as his vote at the ballot box. But I'll sleep better tonight knowing that no matter how many hateful fuckwits like Akin the Republicans vote in, most of their hearts are in the right place.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,172
- Reaction score
- 3,179
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
A pattern like this is easiest to spot not in statements but in attempted legislation. What is the party actually trying to do when it is in power and what does it declare it will do if it obtains power. The anti-women activities of the GOP are found in the state level legislation actually passed and in the federal legislation proposed.
People like the guy in the OP may be outliers, but if so they are outliers around a strongly anti-woman center. And if anyone wants proof of the latter look at the actual legislative record which we have discussed numerous times in previous threads.
People like the guy in the OP may be outliers, but if so they are outliers around a strongly anti-woman center. And if anyone wants proof of the latter look at the actual legislative record which we have discussed numerous times in previous threads.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
Exactly.
You have "outliers" like Todd Akin whose stupid comments were repudiated by the GOP establishment. But those comments were nothing more than justification for his policy on abortion -- none, even for rape and incest victims.
And that policy, whatever the justifications, is identical to Paul Ryan's and the official Republican platform. So he's not an outlier at all -- he's exactly in step with GOP policy..
As to the actual OP. that guy is right. If woman couldn't vote Romney would win in a walkover.
I'm curious, Richard. Are you defining "anti-woman" as primarily anti-abortion? Because if you are, I'm also curious to see if you think the 50% or so of American women who are pro life are also anti-woman.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
What percentage of women believe in the GOP platform of no exceptions for abortion? What percentage believe in restricting contraception services? What percentage oppose the Fair Pay act? (Opposed by every GOP Senator except Olympia Snow.)
amazing that republican women have still managed 15 governorships, 14 cabinet positions, 88 congressional tenures and 5 senate seats.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,172
- Reaction score
- 3,179
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
Anti abortion does not mean pro-forced vaginal probing.
Also if you look at the article you're quoting, only 22% of women are in favor of outlawing abortion under all circumstances, about the same as think it should be allowed under all circumstances. The majority of women think that abortion should be legal under some circumstances. So what you have there is which label people wish to be classified under.
But even if we accept your point:
I'm also looking at anti-contraception, including the forbidding of birth control pills for medical conditions because they might prevent pregnancy.
And how about this little gem:
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009
So no. It's not all about abortion rights. It's not even all about birth control and women's health. It's about human dignity.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
According to the link Haggis gave, quite a few.
Contraeption Services? Please define that? Are we talking about a woman being able to get the pill by her doctor? Or are we talking about public funding for birth controls. Or something else. I think that would change those #s as well.
I'm not familar with the fair pay act, or the oppositions, so again hard to comment.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,172
- Reaction score
- 3,179
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
22% according to Haggis' link. Which percentage wise is not a lot. And about equal to those who support abortion under all circumstances. The majority support abortion under some circumstances.
By the way for those keeping score. Roe v. Wade supports abortion under some circumstances. That doesn't mean it's the same some circumstances. Indeed nearly everyone has different lists of acceptable circumstances.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,771
- Reaction score
- 630
- Age
- 30
- Location
- New York
- Website
- www.thebooklantern.com
Even if it were 40%, that would be beyond the point. Women can be sexist, too. Against their very own sex. Just like blacks and Asians and whites can be racist against their own race. Just because a minority or a majority are a part of a racist/sexist movement against them doesn't make it not so.
A great deal of sexism I've faced online and in RL has come equally from both sexes. I'd define a staunch - no abortions ever stance - as anti-woman.
For the record, I'm neither D or R, but the R's have been pushing people like me - black females - further and further away for the last decade. Which is a shame because I agree with certain conservative policies.
A great deal of sexism I've faced online and in RL has come equally from both sexes. I'd define a staunch - no abortions ever stance - as anti-woman.
For the record, I'm neither D or R, but the R's have been pushing people like me - black females - further and further away for the last decade. Which is a shame because I agree with certain conservative policies.
I'd guess not nearly as many, but I have no numbers on that. Do you?
Actually I wasn't making any point. I was asking for clarification about your position.
Really? So anyone who disagrees with one or more of your points is not only anti-woman but is also anti human dignity?
Maybe they just have a different idea of what human dignity really is. But I appreciate the additional information nonetheless. I assumed there was more to it than merely one's stand on abortion. Still, I expect it's fair to say abortion--opposition to abortion, rather--is at least a main component of the Republican War on Women. Isn't it troubling that so many women appear to be on the wrong side of the issue?
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,361
- Reaction score
- 1,032
- Location
- In your mind
- Website
- maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I’ll be happy to talk about Democrat hypocrisy in other threads, and how Democrat partisans are busy promoting the same kind of shit that George Bush did four years ago, and how the Democrats have the spine of boiled broccoli. That is all true. Acceptances about issues from the Dems now that they were incendiarily outraged about four years ago are interesting. Maybe even as interesting as this.
But it does seem that whenever there’s talk about GOP and some egregious opinion, we should view that opinion as isolated from the main of the GOP. It was true of Santorum, of Gingrich, and it was true of Limbaugh, and it was true of the the vaginal probes.
You may dismiss my opinion as needlessly partisan, of course. That is your right. But if you look at it holistically, that pastor’s expression fit well within the mould of the stated policies over the last years. It is indeed a pattern. It is not at all outlier, but is in fact well within the scope of the expressed policy of the current GOP leadership - from Paul Ryan and Romney over to the GOP convention and the GOP manifest.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
Hold on, the mould of the GOP leadership is that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
I think that's more than a bit overreaching.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,361
- Reaction score
- 1,032
- Location
- In your mind
- Website
- maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I don't think so. If you can nearly succeed on state level to introduce medical rape of women, and then have in the manifest that there should be no exception for abortion, then I think that women's vote is a pretty small step. But then again, I'm sure that we could find a way to say that the vaginal probe was isolated to that state, and that the manifest is never going to be fulfilled anyway. Sure. We can also say that the heavy hitters on the conservative pundit circuit, like Hannity, have no influence what so ever on the party, and that Hannity's endorsement of this guy's organisation is meaningless.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,172
- Reaction score
- 3,179
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
Human dignity is respect for individuals as individuals. If you have another definition I'll hear it.
And I don't agree about the centrality of abortion rights. I agree that it's what Republicans have used as their stalking horse and excuse. But recently the gloves have come off and challenges on other issues as mentioned have come up. Challenges to contraception are being made. Not to mention rejection of women's health care concerns when they are opposed by organized religions or just employers who feel squicky.
In any case, what are you defining as the right and wrong side of abortion. By the absolutist standards the majority of women are on neither side.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
I've never heard of any other GOPer talking about this. Add in Everyone from Sarah Palin to Michelle Bachmen, to Ann Coulter, etc, it's a pretty big leap.
Nope. Your definition works just fine for me. It's just that those individuals who oppose abortion--even those individuals who oppose all abortions, regardless of the reason--would likely claim their position respects human dignity too. That presumes, of course, that the fetus is a human being, which they accept as true.
I'm aware of the general Republican opposition to that portion of Obamacare which requires employers to provide contraception services. I'm also aware that certain employers (the Catholic Church for example) take exception to that on religious grounds. What are some of the other challenges to contraception you've seen from Republicans? I'm honestly not aware of any others.
Fair question. I'm not so sure you can have a right or wrong side of an ethical question, but for the record, while I am a firm believer in contraception, I am not a fan of abortion. That's all about my own personal ethics. Religion has nothing to do with it. At the same time, I realize there are other people much smarter than I am who have no such qualms. I make no claim that my position is superior to theirs. Nor do I try to impose my position on them. Nor do I judge those who perform abortions or those on whom abortions are performed. Roe v Wade is in the books, and any attempt to turn back the clock now would be insanity.
We probably shouldn't try to take the vote away from women either.
How'd I do?
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,172
- Reaction score
- 3,179
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
You're asking me. I was going to ask you how I did.
Anyway,
Contraception. Here's Rick Santroum:
More germane, a number of the 'anti-abortion' laws also restrict hormonal birth control using the false claim that those methods cause abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html/
The anti-contraception laws that are based on employer religion are problematic in two directions.
1. They allow religious restrictions only on birth and birth control related matters. That's inconsistent. A religious exemption would have to allow Christian Scientists to refuse to pay for any medical treatment and I think it's Seventh Day Adventists refusing to pay for blood transfusions.
2. It's the imposition of the employer's religion on the employee. Free exercise of religion, if it means anything means you don't get to impose it on others.
http://www.kcur.org/post/birth-control-restriction-bill-passes-out-senate-committee
It is argued that the Right to Life position is morally consistent and holds to human dignity because it protects the life of the fetus. But this position is flawed because birth is always a risk to the mother. There is no such thing as a completely safe pregnancy.
So even if one takes the position that there are two lives at risk, the question becomes what procedures need to be done to ensure the best possible medical outcome. A position based on human dignity and right to life would express equal claims for both lives with the balance going to medical decision. But the proposed laws do not do that, they simply ban abortion under as many cases including life or health of the mother. Therefore, they hold the life of the fetus above the life of the mother. Therefore, to return to your original question they are demonstrably anti-woman.
Discomfort with abortion is not an unreasonable position. It's a distressing action. But biology as I have posted multiple times does not care about our mental comfort. Humans have a lot of difficulties giving birth and the burden of it is completely on the mother. I therefore tend to feel as a father that I should have little or no say, because it's not my body going through the process.
The idea that I or anyone else gets to demand someone else go through or terminate a pregnancy is far more morally repugnant to me than abortion. I see anti-abortion legislation as morally equivalent to China's one child policy; it is the use of force on the inside's of people's bodies without their consent.
That kind of power is not something people or states should be given without care and deliberation in individual cases, and these laws take away just that care and deliberation.
When the rights and interest of a woman, and the rights and interests of a fetus are in direct conflict, and you pick one, then by necessity, you've sided against the other.
Regardless of the fact that many Republicans are women, their policies side with the fetus--and thus, against the women carrying them--in these matters.
Regardless of the fact that many Republicans are women, their policies side with the fetus--and thus, against the women carrying them--in these matters.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2011
- Messages
- 7,212
- Reaction score
- 974
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
- Website
- www.facebook.com
Hear, hear. In fact, what Limbaugh, Issa, et al., did to Sandra Fluke is an easy way to make lots of enemies all at once. Enemies who still, as of 2012, have the vote.
I think we've got more than enough incidents already. Considering the number of new laws being passed every year that harm the rights and lives of women in state after state, every single one of those laws without exception being sponsored, promoted, and passed by rightwing GOP politicians, yeah, I'd say we can confidently declare that this is the mainstream view of the GOP. And we can look with pity at those who continue desperately to try to make it not so by the magic of denial.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2011
- Messages
- 7,212
- Reaction score
- 974
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
- Website
- www.facebook.com
LINK!
According to polling data collected recently and polling trends over the past decades since the passing of Roe v. Wade, American attitudes towards abortion have hardly shifted at all.
About 77% of Americans want abortion safe and legal. That's not 77% of Democratic Americans, or male Americans, or female Americans, or whatever. 77% of Americans as a whole. Left, right, both sexes, all ages. Including Republicans.
So the idea that there are female Republicans tells us nothing but that women are just as likely as men (*coughRomneycough*) to whore out their principles and their own best interests for short term political advantage, and just as likely as men to adhere slavishly to an ideology instead of reality, as if ideology has cooler magic powers.
Which is to say, not all that likely, since less than a quarter of Americans want either no restrictions at all on Abortion or a total ban on abortion, to refer to just this one issue. That tells us that the number of Republican women who actually do support the rash of GOP anti-woman legislation over the past few years or who agree with Todd Akin, must be very small indeed.
The mere fact that there are women in the GOP does not mean they support this position. Hell, if Romney can claim not to support it but still represent the party, why should the female members not do the same?
But all that aside, no amount of female support will make these GOP platform planks, or this actual legislation, or these social attitudes less harmful to women in, you know, real life. So the trotting out of a handful of women who may or may not know what they are talking about or who are misled or cynical enough to think they can make life harder for the rest of us but never suffer from it themselves, is really a pointless exercise.
No reproductive rights. No or limited contraception. No equal pay for equal work. These are the GOP's positions. And they are harmful to women. There's no weaseling out from under that.
According to polling data collected recently and polling trends over the past decades since the passing of Roe v. Wade, American attitudes towards abortion have hardly shifted at all.
About 77% of Americans want abortion safe and legal. That's not 77% of Democratic Americans, or male Americans, or female Americans, or whatever. 77% of Americans as a whole. Left, right, both sexes, all ages. Including Republicans.
So the idea that there are female Republicans tells us nothing but that women are just as likely as men (*coughRomneycough*) to whore out their principles and their own best interests for short term political advantage, and just as likely as men to adhere slavishly to an ideology instead of reality, as if ideology has cooler magic powers.
Which is to say, not all that likely, since less than a quarter of Americans want either no restrictions at all on Abortion or a total ban on abortion, to refer to just this one issue. That tells us that the number of Republican women who actually do support the rash of GOP anti-woman legislation over the past few years or who agree with Todd Akin, must be very small indeed.
The mere fact that there are women in the GOP does not mean they support this position. Hell, if Romney can claim not to support it but still represent the party, why should the female members not do the same?
But all that aside, no amount of female support will make these GOP platform planks, or this actual legislation, or these social attitudes less harmful to women in, you know, real life. So the trotting out of a handful of women who may or may not know what they are talking about or who are misled or cynical enough to think they can make life harder for the rest of us but never suffer from it themselves, is really a pointless exercise.
No reproductive rights. No or limited contraception. No equal pay for equal work. These are the GOP's positions. And they are harmful to women. There's no weaseling out from under that.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
What--specifically--is the "mainstream view"? Everyone keeps shifting around.
Can we at least agree that disenfranchising all women is not this "mainstream view"?
Or, we can look with humor at those who don't really want to discuss anything, only want absolute agreement with poorly constructed generalizations, yet still imagine they are open-minded.
There are women who believe that men should be the boss. My guess is, most of these women are Republicans.