Talk Elections

Scott Walker's making the most of his melting Republican majority in the legislature with a slew of legislative victories against women.

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20120407/WDH0101/204070455/Gov-Scott-Walker-quietly-signs-abortion-sex-education-bills-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Republicans hadn't yet opened up a front on the equal pay issue, but Walker struck a blow for his side.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/07/wisconsin-s-repeal-of-equal-pay-rights-adds-to-battles-for-women.html

I doubt this will help him in the recall election.

I believe we already have a megathread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150850.0) on this topic.

Cool. Moderators can move these updates to that thread if they like.

It would also help if they stickied it instead of making people search for it...   

True. There's going to be many more events as the Presidential and Congressional races heat up and the overwhelming Republican majorities in the states eke out more victories at the ends of their sessions.

I guess having one go through more hoops to get an abortion can be described as part of a "war on women" in the hyperbolic political world in which we live, but teaching abstinence as an option in sex education classes is part of that "war" too?

The idea of equal pay for women based on some cross field comparative "worth" analysis is ludicrous, so interring that anti-market idea, is there any evidence that women these days are paid less all things being equal, and taking into account career hiatuses?  It is men actually that are a mess at the moment, with what is it, some 60% of college graduates now female?  Maybe we should focus on men for awhile, if we are going to get into the gender equality games.

I don't think the Dem "war on women" meme is a dog that is going to hunt this November. It's all hat, no cattle, and mostly BS hyperbole.  If you want to debate the abortion issue, fine, but don't demagogue it as some sort of it is all about misogyny. I just don't think voters are as dumb as the Dems assume on this one.

Thank you.

I don't think it stems from misogyny so much as from callousness and lack of empathy. Based on the polling, women are noticing. The big problem here is that Republicans won elections on 2010 as a reaction against Obama by moderate voters, and are legislating based on the priorities of a powerful, very conservative subset of your coalition that has a real problem with cultural changes that a large majority of Americans made peace with decades ago, including many non-Democrats. Make hay while the sun shines, eh?

BTW, seeing the advocacy for people against Trayvon Martin and the ridiculous lengths to go to prove that he probably deserved to die, I have a serious empathy deficit for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have no problem seeing people other than them ****ed over and then chuckling about it. The war on women is part of that callous calculation. Maybe I'm a "dumb" for thinking there's something wrong with Santorum's main funder going up on tv and making that aspirin joke, for all all the conservative leaders attacking Sandra Fluke as a slut and a whore because she testified about birth control. Maybe I "don't get it" and shouldn't be taken seriously. But at this point, not being taken seriously by the likes of people who hear about Trayvon Martin and immediately construct hypotheses why he was unworthy of life and the real privileged member of society, or who feel women who seek an abortion should be required to submit to the equivalent of rape by a doctor, I would consider a badge of honor.

Abortion is an issue of conscience. It has little or nothing to do about gender as an animating principle.  For women who find that issue to be of high salience, they have already divided on that one, and did so long ago. What is on the table now, given Roe and its progeny, is hardly of much import anyway. "Requiring doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions," = rape of women by their doctor?  

Sure one can pick and choose over the top rhetoric on both sides (Limbaugh, Santorum (Friess (sp) is an idiot by the way, and he should know better than to get anywhere near the media), Maher, Olbermann, that horrible Congresswoman from Florida, etc., that is indefensible. What does that have to do with anything?

Returning to the war on men, I might add to that the evisceration of male sports in college (other than the big money makers of course), so that we have equal numbers of male and female athletes.

Tory it isn't only about your precise definition of what is or is not a 'war on women', but rather the obvious fact that the GOP is overall opposed to the interests of women, just as they are overall opposed to the interests of Blacks and Hispanics.   Another way to put this is that the GOP is the party which is for maximizing subjugation of women, blacks, and hispanics.

It is the party of you - of rich white men - and this is obvious to everyone, including a huge number of 'middle class' suburban women (even white women!)

That's naive. There are many reasons to oppose abortion, only some of which are a sincere belief that it is a crime. There are reasons that go beyond that in either direction... for some people, it is part and parcel with opposition to contraception and to sexuality outside of a very traditional role, and that is what we have seen this past year with the war on contraception and the chuckling about sluts and whores. That does not play well with women who respect a principled objection to abortion but recognizing slut-shaming when they see it. On the other side, there are plenty of politicians who don't really care about abortion but know which side their bread is buttered on, and fight the fight on behalf of their constituents. That's all well and good, except when their main point of reference is their lack of empathy toward women and general contempt, which leads to restrictions that infantilize women who seek abortions, or which subject them to medically unnecessary rape.

I refuse to ascribe to the majority of anti-abortion politicians the sincerity or lack of gender issues of their sincere followers. Perhaps you take Newt Gingrich and Dan Burton at their word that they really don't have opinions about women's sexuality? I've seen too many cases of womanizing or vulgar Republicans preaching morality on abortion or homosexuality because it cost them nothing.

I guess it depends on how you define the "interests of women."  Is it in the "interests of women" to move more in the direction of rendering men dysfunctional as and uninterested in being bread winners? We seem to have found the superhighway with no speed limits to getting there.  

By the way, opebo, why do you have such trouble spelling my screen name?  Maybe if you find it too taxing, you can just call me "Steve."  Would that be easier for you?  :)

Sure Brittain33, politicians tend to be whores. I just don't think there is much substance there, and I suspect women are smarter than having their vote ride on all this noise. I suspect your theory about the gang of boorish men's view of female sexuality however, goes way beyond what reality might support, but it is tough to litigate what goes on in one's mind, and what the real emotions are, that are involved, so it probably isn't worth arguing about.

BTW, I surely don't need to cite the examples of Republican policies on war, labor unions, Cuba, and the welfare safety net to cite that the alliance with the Catholic episcopate on contraception is purely one of convenience.

People who oppose these policies on contraception have the right to make this less convenient for them.

Well sure, of course it is, but when you agree on an issue, you break bread together. In this case, however, the Catholics think this and some other matters (per the NYC cardinal), is something akin to a "war on religion."  So add that war to the list while we are at it, along with Obama's "war on the courts" (perhaps inspired by Newt :P).

LOL, that's exactly how this whole round of demagoguery started! Republicans have been claiming it was a war on religion for a while, and they launched this latest round two months ago. (I certainly remember them labeling Kennedy, Kerry etc. as anti-Catholic for opposing Catholic judges in the mid-2000s, then of course Obamacare was anti-religious, etc; the latest round started with the decision to mandate birth control coverage at employers affiliated with the Catholic church, but not of the church.) Then Democrats responded by citing the full range of efforts, and now Republicans are scrambling to hide that they ever picked this fight and are claiming it's been 100% jobs, jobs, jobs, economy, economy, economy from them all year. What goes around, comes around, one could say.

Did you read Holder's response to that 5th Circuit Court's request? It was a masterpiece. They even cited a case litigated by none other than now-Sen. Ayotte demanding that the courts pay heed to the will of the legislature.

War on women, war on men, war on religion,  war on the courts, war on the planet, war on cars, war on drugs = war on common sense.

No, where is it?  Does Holder think Marbury v Madison is still good law?

Yes, he affirms it just before he turns the knife.

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/04/dojltr5thcir.pdf

Yes, it's all quite juvenile but since Dems have lost the demagoguery initiative since early 2009 and have borne the brunt of some truly stupid and insulting campaigns which were wildly successful for the Pubbies, some of us are just relieved that our leadership knows how to play this game, and probably better than Mitt Romney. We lost with honor and ineptitude with sincere folks like Gore and Kerry, who needs it?

Splendid. Next time Obama can just say (ludicrously, but he can say it), that any claim that the mandate goes beyond the reach of the interstate commerce clause is frivolous, and therefore if SCOTUS finds otherwise, it is being "activist."  

Obama insulted hopefully just about everyone's intelligence by saying that however, who knows one f'ing thing about interstate commerce constitutional law. What is Obama's clear "limiting principle" by the way?  I never heard one from team Obama. In fact, they were so pathetic, that I had to make one up for them - before then proceeding to shred it I think pretty effectively.

Obama is I suspect even more arrogant that I am, and I find that rather disturbing actually.

What? In what way?  Are you saying men are dis-motivated by efforts towards gender equality?  I don't think feeling bad about your privilege being reduced is precisely the same thing as that.  One might as well say freeing the Black rendered Southern Planters dysfunctional as and uninterested in being cotton winners.


My genuine apologies Torie - in fact unlike many of my misspellings, this one is entirely unintentional and not any sort of attempt to annoy you.  I'll try to avoid it, and I most certainly understand it - I get very annoyed at the 'opedo' misspelling so many indulge in.

I would expect anyone who runs for President to be extraordinarily arrogant. Al Gore may have been a rare exception.

You should scale back your interactions with JJ. It starts showing.

Well let us start with male academic performance hitting the crapper, along with their interest in supporting families. I would not be surprised if gayness gets more popular over time. In fact, I suspect it is based on my anecdotal experience. One can debate the causes, but none of this current stuff is very helpful.

There is no need to shoot through JJ's corpus while he is not here, to try to lodge some hot lead in the old man. JJ perhaps due to his pacific nature takes a lot of crap around here, that I for one would not put up with. Thanks.

Ad hominem attacks about my nationality and pacific nature usually don't come together.
The crap he takes is because he says ridiculous or downright false things and when he is busted he insists that he is right using increasingly convoluted arguments and torturous logic.

No, that's all caused by capitalism Torie - your neo-liberal ideology demands that they become very poor and paid only a subsistence, so that they cannot support families or afford to attend college.

Just put them all back in unions making $50/hour with full benefits, and they'll take care of all social and familial obligations to a T.

What exactly does this have to do with making men dysfunctional? The only thing you've noticed is gay people being more open about it - this is primarily because society has become more tolerant of homosexuality. The actual amount of homosexuals has not really increased.

That is another theory.

It's a better one that yours considering it's actually backed by science.

Oh, I doubt there has been a very accurate gay census. It isn't all or nothing anyway often.

FWIW, 88% of the net increase in jobs since February 2010 can be accounted for by net increase among men. The meme that men are in trouble was partially started by the collapse of the construction and manufacturing industries, compared to the relative stability of the health care, education and local government sectors. This meant that, during the recession men lost jobs at a disproportionate rate compared to women. But now with manufacturing coming back, construction bottoming out, and more men getting into fields such as nursing, we are seeing the jobs comeback centered around men. The male unemployment rate used to be much higher than the female unemployment rate, but now they are about even.

The technology center is going to be another job nexus over the next 10 years and I can tell you right now, women are in big trouble if we are counting on technology to provide the next generation's jobs. Well, we are all in trouble but women especially. Boys don't grow up dreaming of becoming scientists or astronauts the way they used to, but men don't have a problem learning this stuff if they need to, to find a career. For women, I don't think they are less capable than men but I do think the socialization is so overwhelming, a young woman who wants to maintain a successful feminine presentation, and goes into software is like an alien stepping into another planet.

Overall, the ratio of labor force participation of women to men made great strides through the mid-1990s and then stalled out.

No, I'm talking about the fact that homosexuality isn't a choice. Saying that it can be "popular" as if it's some kind of fad indicates that you think it is.

It's a continuum. Some folks are at the margins, and some separate certain sex acts from their self identity, and on and on. There just isn't some bright line out there.

Yes there is. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to have Muscular dystrophy or the color of your eyes.

Sexual attraction is not related to actually performing sex acts. Some men are certainly bisexual, but they make up only a small percentage of the population and as such aren't really relevant to any argument about making men dysfunctional. In fact, your entire notion that men being in homosexual relationships are dysfunctional is absurd.

I won't get into all the discussion in this thread as I arrived late (including the lovely discussion on gayness) but I think forcing women to put wands in their vagina before they get a medical procedure is disgusting and I don't think it's far fetched to call it rape. You can oppose abortion all you want but humiliating women like that? Oh and has the Republican party at large smacked down Rush yet for calling a woman with PCOS a slut? Last I remember Romney ran away when asked a question about it.

I never said that, and if I implied it, I misspoke, and I don't believe that. What I was musing about I guess in the end, is if marriage, and being the bread winner for a family, and so forth, is less attractive and/or feasible to men overall due to their poor educational performance, marginalization in the PC world, and so forth, at the margins it might affect sexual behavior. It was meant to be a small point, not a large one.

But the important point is not the issue about the gay (because after all who cares if a poor is gay or straight), but rather the assumptions I've underlined above.  Those are not the reasons men cannot afford to have families, Torie.  They can't afford to have families because of government-imposed polices: concentration of income and impoverishment of the vast majority of men.  If you think that anything beyond a tiny minority of men can 'achieve' breadwinner incomes in a neo-liberal economic arrangement, you're dreaming.  And after all this leads to enormous social problems, all borne by the working class.  You rich are consuming the poor in the most vicious way imaginable.

No, opebo. If we only cut the marginal tax rate on Apple Inc. and Warren Buffet by another percentage point, mountains of gold will trickle down onto the faces of millions of newly breadwinning men.

Yes, the economy of the planet has changed, putting downward economic pressure on lower skilled workers among other things. It certainly is an issue which cannot be ignored. But none of the above explains why 60% of college graduates in the US are now female, and the economic dividends of a college degree are now more substantial than ever.