GOP notches another victory in the War on Women

[opebo]

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!)

[opebo]

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.

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.

By the way, opebo, why do you have such trouble spelling my screen name?

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.

[opebo]

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.

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.

[opebo]

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,

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.