GOP notches another victory in the War on Women

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

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?

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.

[Torie]

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!)

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.

[Torie]

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.

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 ).

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

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 ).

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.

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

[Torie]

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

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.

[Torie]

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.

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.

[Torie]

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

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.

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

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.

[Torie]

I would not be surprised if gayness gets more popular over time. In fact, I suspect it is based on my anecdotal experience.

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.

[Torie]

I would not be surprised if gayness gets more popular over time. In fact, I suspect it is based on my anecdotal experience.

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.

[Torie]

I would not be surprised if gayness gets more popular over time. In fact, I suspect it is based on my anecdotal experience.

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.

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.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Torie]

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.

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.