superstring01
Moderator
Ugh. I mean. Fucking ugh.
We need to come up with a word that means "Ugh", "Facepalm", "Retard" (like in "The Hangover" - ri-TARD) and "Holyfuckingshit!"
~String
The Issue of Legitimate Rape
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
Ugh. I mean. Fucking ugh.
We need to come up with a word that means "Ugh", "Facepalm", "Retard" (like in "The Hangover" - ri-TARD) and "Holyfuckingshit!"
~String
a brief digression into history....
damn taliban
In a piece that was typical of the widespread outrage the remarks stirred, the Atlantic magazine called them the "contemporary equivalent of the early American belief that only witches float."
The writer was onto something important. Akin's ideas truly do date back to the colonial era.
In those days, prior to modern medical understanding of conception, women were considered to be "more amorous" than men, and it was believed that both partners needed to have orgasms in order for conception to occur.
Nicholas Culpeper's 17th century midwife manuals espoused that it was a woman's "womb, skipping as it were for joy" that produced "in that pang of Pleasure" the "seed" needed for conception to occur. If both husband and wife were not properly in love and enjoying sex, conception would fail, he asserted, because "the woman, being averse, does not produce sufficient quantities of the spirits with which her genitals should normally swell."
Although many women in early America undoubtedly knew that orgasm was not required for pregnancy to occur, many women also embraced the two-seed theory of reproduction.
Jane Sharp's 17th century manual, for example, explicitly discussed the clitoris, and described it as the location for women's physical sexual pleasures and the key to women's ability to conceive. "By the stirring of the Clitoris," she wrote, "the imagination causeth the Vessels to cast out that Seed that lyeth deep in the body."
Such notions of fertilization could have profound implications for women who sought justice after rape resulted in pregnancy. As historian of rape in early America Sharon Block has shown, colonial courts were notoriously suspicious of women who brought rape accusations. Women were seldom taken at their word and the status of the accused and the accuser became central to the outcome of the case. Moreover, a recurring theme in newspapers of the era was that that men needed to protect themselves against women — "the cunning sex" — who were out to falsely accuse them of rape.
Women who bore the added burden of pregnancy as a result of rape might come under special criticism in an already skeptical legal and social setting. Given the understanding of conception outlined above, if a woman became pregnant as the result of rape, consent would be assumed. Newspapers in early America routinely mocked women who dared to speak about rape and sexual assault by implying that they had wanted the sexual contact.
Indeed, the idea of women as bewitching seductresses was common in early America. In 1759, a woman named Anna Donham was brought before the Plymouth General Session for having had "a wicked and diabolical intent to corrupt and debauch" the local men, inciting them "to commit fornication and adultery." She was fined and sentenced to public lashing, but the men who enjoyed her company were not accused of any crime.
In the 1980s, politicians and activists again embraced the idea expressed by Akin, that women who were raped generally could not conceive. They did so for the same reasons as Akin — to affect abortion legislation. But by the 1980s, such discussions were centuries behind the times. A generation later, politicians embracing this rhetoric remain willfully ignorant and dangerously powerful.
The writer was onto something important. Akin's ideas truly do date back to the colonial era.
In those days, prior to modern medical understanding of conception, women were considered to be "more amorous" than men, and it was believed that both partners needed to have orgasms in order for conception to occur.
Nicholas Culpeper's 17th century midwife manuals espoused that it was a woman's "womb, skipping as it were for joy" that produced "in that pang of Pleasure" the "seed" needed for conception to occur. If both husband and wife were not properly in love and enjoying sex, conception would fail, he asserted, because "the woman, being averse, does not produce sufficient quantities of the spirits with which her genitals should normally swell."
Although many women in early America undoubtedly knew that orgasm was not required for pregnancy to occur, many women also embraced the two-seed theory of reproduction.
Jane Sharp's 17th century manual, for example, explicitly discussed the clitoris, and described it as the location for women's physical sexual pleasures and the key to women's ability to conceive. "By the stirring of the Clitoris," she wrote, "the imagination causeth the Vessels to cast out that Seed that lyeth deep in the body."
Such notions of fertilization could have profound implications for women who sought justice after rape resulted in pregnancy. As historian of rape in early America Sharon Block has shown, colonial courts were notoriously suspicious of women who brought rape accusations. Women were seldom taken at their word and the status of the accused and the accuser became central to the outcome of the case. Moreover, a recurring theme in newspapers of the era was that that men needed to protect themselves against women — "the cunning sex" — who were out to falsely accuse them of rape.
Women who bore the added burden of pregnancy as a result of rape might come under special criticism in an already skeptical legal and social setting. Given the understanding of conception outlined above, if a woman became pregnant as the result of rape, consent would be assumed. Newspapers in early America routinely mocked women who dared to speak about rape and sexual assault by implying that they had wanted the sexual contact.
Indeed, the idea of women as bewitching seductresses was common in early America. In 1759, a woman named Anna Donham was brought before the Plymouth General Session for having had "a wicked and diabolical intent to corrupt and debauch" the local men, inciting them "to commit fornication and adultery." She was fined and sentenced to public lashing, but the men who enjoyed her company were not accused of any crime.
In the 1980s, politicians and activists again embraced the idea expressed by Akin, that women who were raped generally could not conceive. They did so for the same reasons as Akin — to affect abortion legislation. But by the 1980s, such discussions were centuries behind the times. A generation later, politicians embracing this rhetoric remain willfully ignorant and dangerously powerful.
damn taliban
This is consistent with their resurrection and advocacy of 15th century economic policy.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
He may be old, but he's not a hippie anymore. Please confiscate his Grateful Dead t-shirt next time you see him.
Poor Congressman Akin, most of his fellow Republicans have deserted him and he still doesn’t understand what why. He was just doing what he has always done. His positions have not changed. The party’s positions have not changed – depending on who you believe. The party still maintains Akin’s staunch anti-abortion stance. But Romney is now, post Akin, allowing exemptions for rape and incest.
Akin didn’t say anything his Republican colleagues would find antithetical to conservative doctrine. Akin cosponsored anti-abortion legislation with Ryan. So one can easily understand why Congressman Akin is so confused at finding he is now an outcast for saying what has been and remains core Republican doctrine. Akin’s problem is that he doesn’t understand, that he committed the greatest offense a Republican can ever make, he was honest in expressing his views.
Akin didn’t say anything his Republican colleagues would find antithetical to conservative doctrine. Akin cosponsored anti-abortion legislation with Ryan. So one can easily understand why Congressman Akin is so confused at finding he is now an outcast for saying what has been and remains core Republican doctrine. Akin’s problem is that he doesn’t understand, that he committed the greatest offense a Republican can ever make, he was honest in expressing his views.
20 Point Swing in the polls post "legitimate rape" comment
That idiot, Akin, is now running 10 points behind McCaskill. Before his abortion gaff, he was over 10 points ahead. A twenty point swing. He should have dropped out of the race as he was asked to do. He may end up being responsible for extending Harry Reid's reign of incompetence as majority leader. I hope he continues to drop in the polls and sees the light so he can be replaced with a viable candidate.
That idiot, Akin, is now running 10 points behind McCaskill. Before his abortion gaff, he was over 10 points ahead. A twenty point swing. He should have dropped out of the race as he was asked to do. He may end up being responsible for extending Harry Reid's reign of incompetence as majority leader. I hope he continues to drop in the polls and sees the light so he can be replaced with a viable candidate.
Ain't over yet
I was listening to an NPR report yesterday, and one would think Sen. McCaskill has the election sewn up to hear the analysts talk about it. And it's true, I think the financial losses will hurt Akin tremendously. But, in the first place, this is Missouri. And, in the second, it's 2012. That is, there are lots of conservatives in Missouri, and this is a strange year.
The thing is that this rhetoric pops up every several years. To be specific, I think this is the third or fourth time in twenty years I've come across it. My favorite iteration, though, is circa 1995, when a North Carolina Republican in the state house argued that a woman can't get pregnant from rape because "the juices ain't flowin'".
But this is the first time I remember the public really getting stirred up about it. And there are a number of reasons why, I think.
There's the whole question of a "war on women". And within that are Republican attempts to narrow the definition of rape specifically to exclude statutory rape.
There is the "jobs, jobs, jobs, jobortion" aspect, too. With Republicans at the state levels using bureaucratic regulation to effectively accomplish what they cannot through legal regulation. In Mississippi, a TRAP law sponsor argued that maybe some women would get themselves killed having illegal abortions, but, hey, you have to have morals, and you gotta start somewhere. After winning tremendous gains in 2010 based on economic and employment issues, Republicans have spent their efforts trying to end abortion, exclude birth control, and compel the government to regard children bribed, manipulated, or intoxicated to sexual consent as not having been raped.
Ordinarily, Akin's idiocy would be just another brick in the wall.
This year, though?
One could roughly estimate that 20-25% of the voters will stick with Akin, much like one in five stuck with the Republican Party in general during its darker days. Set them aside. That's, say, 25% for Akin.
Then there are those driven by anti-Obama and anti-liberal sentiment. Candidate quality has not been an issue for these people in the past?
And here we have to consider that Akin's remarks do not emerge from a vacuum. The main proponent of the no-pregnancy-from-rape argument is Dr. John Willke, formerly the president of National Right to Life. His latest argument, just this week, is that a woman is "frightened, tight, and so on", such that, "The tubes are spastic".
No, really.
This has been near the heart of the anti-abortion movement for years.
So there are conservatives who will support Akin because he's only saying aloud what they've been muttering to themselves for years.
If that puts him up over 40%, he's back in the race.
So it's the money, it seems, that is the big question. And the GOP isn't making any principled decision in cutting him off; it's a cold political calculation because Akin's gaffe in Missouri is rippling through races in other states. Even Elizabeth Warren's supporters in Massachusetts are trying to tie Sen. Scott Brown to Akin through partisan legislation. Rep. Ryan, these last couple days, has been trying to distance himself from his sponsorship of a legitimate-rape anti-abortion bill. Akin's gaffe was to say what he said aloud, where other people could hear him. The idea underpins the anti-abortion platform, but just like Turzai in Pennsylvania on voter ID laws, you just don't come right out and say it.
Akin's big problem right now is money. And though I would agree generally that "things are looking up for McCaskill", I'm not ready to stick a fork in this particular race. But I do disagree with Sen. Danforth (R-MO) that Akin has "no chance of winning".
This ain't over, yet.
____________________
Notes:
Naylor, Brian. "Cut Off From Party's Purse Strings, Rep. Akin Plans Next Move". All Things Considered. August 22, 2012. NPR.org. August 23, 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...partys-purse-strings-rep-akin-plans-next-move
Belluck, Pam. "Health Experts Dismiss Assertions on Rape". The New York Times. August 20, 2012. NYTimes.com. August 23, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rape-assertions-are-dismissed-by-health-experts.html
Madanthonywayne said:
I was listening to an NPR report yesterday, and one would think Sen. McCaskill has the election sewn up to hear the analysts talk about it. And it's true, I think the financial losses will hurt Akin tremendously. But, in the first place, this is Missouri. And, in the second, it's 2012. That is, there are lots of conservatives in Missouri, and this is a strange year.
The thing is that this rhetoric pops up every several years. To be specific, I think this is the third or fourth time in twenty years I've come across it. My favorite iteration, though, is circa 1995, when a North Carolina Republican in the state house argued that a woman can't get pregnant from rape because "the juices ain't flowin'".
But this is the first time I remember the public really getting stirred up about it. And there are a number of reasons why, I think.
There's the whole question of a "war on women". And within that are Republican attempts to narrow the definition of rape specifically to exclude statutory rape.
There is the "jobs, jobs, jobs, jobortion" aspect, too. With Republicans at the state levels using bureaucratic regulation to effectively accomplish what they cannot through legal regulation. In Mississippi, a TRAP law sponsor argued that maybe some women would get themselves killed having illegal abortions, but, hey, you have to have morals, and you gotta start somewhere. After winning tremendous gains in 2010 based on economic and employment issues, Republicans have spent their efforts trying to end abortion, exclude birth control, and compel the government to regard children bribed, manipulated, or intoxicated to sexual consent as not having been raped.
Ordinarily, Akin's idiocy would be just another brick in the wall.
This year, though?
One could roughly estimate that 20-25% of the voters will stick with Akin, much like one in five stuck with the Republican Party in general during its darker days. Set them aside. That's, say, 25% for Akin.
Then there are those driven by anti-Obama and anti-liberal sentiment. Candidate quality has not been an issue for these people in the past?
And here we have to consider that Akin's remarks do not emerge from a vacuum. The main proponent of the no-pregnancy-from-rape argument is Dr. John Willke, formerly the president of National Right to Life. His latest argument, just this week, is that a woman is "frightened, tight, and so on", such that, "The tubes are spastic".
No, really.
This has been near the heart of the anti-abortion movement for years.
So there are conservatives who will support Akin because he's only saying aloud what they've been muttering to themselves for years.
If that puts him up over 40%, he's back in the race.
So it's the money, it seems, that is the big question. And the GOP isn't making any principled decision in cutting him off; it's a cold political calculation because Akin's gaffe in Missouri is rippling through races in other states. Even Elizabeth Warren's supporters in Massachusetts are trying to tie Sen. Scott Brown to Akin through partisan legislation. Rep. Ryan, these last couple days, has been trying to distance himself from his sponsorship of a legitimate-rape anti-abortion bill. Akin's gaffe was to say what he said aloud, where other people could hear him. The idea underpins the anti-abortion platform, but just like Turzai in Pennsylvania on voter ID laws, you just don't come right out and say it.
Akin's big problem right now is money. And though I would agree generally that "things are looking up for McCaskill", I'm not ready to stick a fork in this particular race. But I do disagree with Sen. Danforth (R-MO) that Akin has "no chance of winning".
This ain't over, yet.
____________________
Notes:
Naylor, Brian. "Cut Off From Party's Purse Strings, Rep. Akin Plans Next Move". All Things Considered. August 22, 2012. NPR.org. August 23, 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...partys-purse-strings-rep-akin-plans-next-move
Belluck, Pam. "Health Experts Dismiss Assertions on Rape". The New York Times. August 20, 2012. NYTimes.com. August 23, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rape-assertions-are-dismissed-by-health-experts.html
Oh, I agree. He has a remote chance of pulling off an upset win. On the other hand, almost anyone else would be a shoe in to win. The funny part is he was actually correct, if he were speaking about ducks:
Washington Post:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee gave embattled Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) some backup, sending an email to supporters saying he “was shocked by GOP leaders and elected officials who rushed so quickly to end the political life of a candidate over a mistaken comment in an interview.” Also weighing in: Ann Wagner, the Republican nominee for Akin’s House seat. “Todd has apologized and understands he was wrong in what he said. It is now up to Missouri voters to decide whether they accept his apology,” Wagner said in a statement.
CNN:
Rep. Akin and his cohort cannot be allowed to substitute folklore for science, and it is our responsibility to stop them. Most notably, those who choose not to distinguish between folklore and science should not be on the House science committee.
Akin: No, McCaskill should drop out!
If Balls Were Gold ...
... then Rep. Todd Akin would be the richest man in the world. Via Gregory J. Krieg, of ABC News:
Seriously; the guy has Jovian balls, if nothing else.
____________________
Notes:
Krieg, Gregory J. "Todd Akin to Claire McCaskill: You Should Drop Out". OTUS. August 23, 2012. ABCNews.Go.com. August 23, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/todd-akin-to-claire-mccaskill-you-should-drop-out/
If Balls Were Gold ...
... then Rep. Todd Akin would be the richest man in the world. Via Gregory J. Krieg, of ABC News:
After days of ignoring Republican pleas to abandon his U.S. Senate campaign in Missouri, Rep. Todd Akin today received an even more damning message: A new Rasmussen poll shows that Akin, who held a tidy lead before making his controversial comments about rape and pregnancy, is now down 10 percentage points (48-38 percent) to incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Never fazed, the Akin campaign shot back with an unlikely proposal.
"The fact that Claire McCaskill is only polling at 48 percent after 72 hours of constant negative attacks on Todd Akin shows just how weak she is," Akin spokesman Perry Akin said in a statement. "If she can't break 50 percent after a week like this, Democrats should ask Claire to step down."
Never fazed, the Akin campaign shot back with an unlikely proposal.
"The fact that Claire McCaskill is only polling at 48 percent after 72 hours of constant negative attacks on Todd Akin shows just how weak she is," Akin spokesman Perry Akin said in a statement. "If she can't break 50 percent after a week like this, Democrats should ask Claire to step down."
Seriously; the guy has Jovian balls, if nothing else.
____________________
Notes:
Krieg, Gregory J. "Todd Akin to Claire McCaskill: You Should Drop Out". OTUS. August 23, 2012. ABCNews.Go.com. August 23, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/todd-akin-to-claire-mccaskill-you-should-drop-out/
Apparently not only are their stated economic policies positively medieval, so are their medical notions. The belief that a woman cannot get pregnant if she is raped has roots in medieval law and medicine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2012/aug/20/legitimate-rape-medieval-medical-concept
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2012/aug/20/legitimate-rape-medieval-medical-concept
Last edited:
Believers
Believers
As Republicans scatter, seeking refuge from the excremental storm that rose in the wake of Rep. Todd Akin's astoundingly uneducated explanation of human reproduction, the really hard part seems to be convincing people that the senate candidate from Missouri is an outlier.
Apparently, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer was unsatisfied with his original denunciation of Akin's critics as akin to Pharisees. Nor, it seems, was it enough to compare the Missouri Republican to Jesus. Now Fischer wants Akin to be the victim, complaining about a "forcible assault" in which "everybody is gang tackling Todd Akin".
Yes, you can chuckle at that. "Gang tackling". Apparently, that's what they call it these days.
"You talk about a forcible situation", said Fischer, "you talk about somebody being a victim of forcible assault, that would be Todd Akin."
Trying to figure out the right-wing rape envy is bizarre; it's almost like some malignant Munchausen Syndrome by which social conservatives are jealous of rape survivors. To the other, one can go too far in that direction; it's a common symptom of empowerment majorities to express hurt feelings when people pay too much attention, or are too sympathetic toward, victims. White burden. Angry male. And now Fischer's bizarre annexation of rape; it seems nearly inevitable that we would eventually encounter this particular ego perversion.
Nor is the AFA alone. Reuters reports that, "Missouri conservatives are rallying around U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin ... because they are outraged that 'establishment' Republican Party leaders tried to railroad him out of the race". And Christian News Wire reports that Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation, two anti-abortion lobbies under the guidance of Troy Newman, issued a statement declaring the organizations' support for Rep. Akin:
The GOP finds itself in an uncomfortable moment; party leaders, finding their dirty laundry hanging out in open daylight, have rushed to denounce Akin and hope to push him from his senate race. But with House Republicans pushing legislation aiming to force poor children and mentally incompetent people to babies, Party leaders have so far been unable to divorce themselves from the enthusiastic—even vicious—and ill-educated social-conservative base bloc. Republicans still need their conservative votes, but it gets harder to woo the swing bloc amid such a crazed cacophony.
It's a hard time for Republicans. Leonard Pitts, Jr. notes:
This has been a strange year for the relationship between Republicans and reality. For months, now, conservatives have tried to fend off accusations of a "war on women"; Mitt Romney even went so far as to argue that President Obama is conducting a willful war on women.
But 2011's H.R. 3, which attempted to proscribe the definition of rape so that federal funds could not be used to terminate pregnancies resulting from statutory rape—you know, the illegitimate kind, since even though one is not considered able to properly consent, they gave consent?—no longer stands in a vacuum. Myriad anti-abortion laws that have obsessed state house Republicans since the 2010 midterm victory, no longer stand in a vacuum—neither time restrictions nor TRAP laws nor forced vaginal penetration can be excluded from the question of misogyny. Arguments about whether or not one's conscience can demand religious discrimination in women's health insurance can no longer be held alone as an issue.
The problem for Republicans is not necessarily what liberals would presume, that conservatives hold such morally broken beliefs. Rather, the problem is that Republicans seem to know that the political rhetoric reflects moral detritus. The anti-abortion movement has asserted this magic contraception for years, as the theory's primary proponent is a former head of National Right to Life, and the founder of International Right to Life Federation and current president of the Life Issues Institute. This is a fundamental aspect of how social conservatives view women; it does not effectively confine itself to abortion exclusively—the mind generally does not, regardless of how spastic it might get, have ways of shutting that down.
Why should Republicans not come out and say, "Todd Akin is right"? It's the same sort of question as wondering why Republicans try to portray anti-abortion as pro-woman; why not just stand on the argument that no, a woman does not have this right over her own body? There still exists an abstract question of what happens to a woman's body, legally, when she becomes pregnant under a life-at-conception outlook. Why do Republicans not step up and say, "It's true: We believe that when a female decides to consent to sex, she is willfully risking her human rights."
True, there are some who genuinely believe that evil forces—communists, the Devil, homosexuals, whatever—have so glamourized the people that such dialogue is impossible. But judging by the people I've known over the years who have been willing to vote for Republicans on a broader scale, it is impossible to assert that this delusional cosmic dualism represents the majority of conservatives.
Yet, what does that leave? Perhaps it is simply that conservatives want established answers to questions that do not necessarily have them. That, though, would still imply something neurotic; one wonders what germinates at the nexus.
In the end, though, to consider those I've known who have been willing Republican voters, there is some insight to be gleaned. A lot of these people adopted an abortion platform without thinking it through because they were following another conservative cause, such as economics or war. These are the voters who terrify the Republican establishment right now. If those voters start to think the issue through, they will do what many of their neighbors have over the years. No, getting lib does not answer every question in the Universe. Indeed, some would suggest—and I think rightly—that it actually compels even more questions. But they look at their daughters and sisters and wives and mothers and start to recognize the faces of the political rhetoric. For these people, to believe that a woman has magical anti-rape contraception built in is just too much of a stretch. To accept that the women they know must risk suspension of their humanity every time they have sex is just too much to ask.
This is what Republicans know; at least, the savvy ones. And it is a cold political calculation; capitalistic, even, if one accepts that not all currency is measured in monetary terms.
They need that social-conservative base. It's been vitally important to the shape of the Republican Party since 1980, at least. And it is true that the Republican establishment has squelched them when they thought they could see real victory. But that's the thing: The Party knows.
One need not be an analyst to read these metrics. At its core, the anti-abortion movement must necessarily presume certain truths, established answers that are beyond question. At its core, the anti-abortion movement relies on a sense of empowerment to drive its people. And at its core, these established answers, and the empowerment they point to, are problematic; that's why the moral beliefs seem broken. And it's also why the Party wants to put miles between itself and Todd Akin.
This is not a discussion Republicans want to have in close quarters right now.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "This Week in God". The Maddow Blog. August 25, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 26, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/25/13474980-this-week-in-god
Tashman, Brian. "Fischer Says Media Treating Akin Like Pharisees Treated Jesus". Right Wing Watch. August 21, 2012. RightWingWatch.org. August 26, 2012. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-media-akin-pharisees-treated-jesus
—————. "Bryan Fischer Says Todd Akin is Like a Victim of Rape". Right Wing Watch. August 21, 2012. RightWingWatch.org. August 26, 2012. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bryan-fischer-says-todd-akin-victim-rape
Carey, Nick. "Todd Akin Keeps Support Of Missouri Conservatives Who Blast Republican 'Establishment'". Reuters. August 24, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. August 26, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/todd-akin-missouri_n_1826778.html
Christian News Wire. "President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation Troy Newman Stands With Todd Akin". Opposing Views. August 24, 2012. OpposingViews.com. August 26, 2012. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/reli...gainst-divisive-politics-personal-destruction
Pitts, Leonard. "Todd Akin's ignorance is hardly unique". Mercury News. August 26, 2012. MercuryNews.com. August 26, 2012. http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_21394668/leonard-pitts-jr-todd-akins-ignorance-is-hardly
See Also:
O'Bryan, Megan. "Todd Akin's statement reflects damaging myths". The Plain Dealer. August 26, 2012. Cleveland.com. August 26, 2012. http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/todd_akins_statement_reflects.html
Believers
"You talk about a forcible situation, you talk about somebody being a victim of forcible assault, that would be Todd Akin." —Bryan Fischer
As Republicans scatter, seeking refuge from the excremental storm that rose in the wake of Rep. Todd Akin's astoundingly uneducated explanation of human reproduction, the really hard part seems to be convincing people that the senate candidate from Missouri is an outlier.
Apparently, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer was unsatisfied with his original denunciation of Akin's critics as akin to Pharisees. Nor, it seems, was it enough to compare the Missouri Republican to Jesus. Now Fischer wants Akin to be the victim, complaining about a "forcible assault" in which "everybody is gang tackling Todd Akin".
Yes, you can chuckle at that. "Gang tackling". Apparently, that's what they call it these days.
"You talk about a forcible situation", said Fischer, "you talk about somebody being a victim of forcible assault, that would be Todd Akin."
Trying to figure out the right-wing rape envy is bizarre; it's almost like some malignant Munchausen Syndrome by which social conservatives are jealous of rape survivors. To the other, one can go too far in that direction; it's a common symptom of empowerment majorities to express hurt feelings when people pay too much attention, or are too sympathetic toward, victims. White burden. Angry male. And now Fischer's bizarre annexation of rape; it seems nearly inevitable that we would eventually encounter this particular ego perversion.
Nor is the AFA alone. Reuters reports that, "Missouri conservatives are rallying around U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin ... because they are outraged that 'establishment' Republican Party leaders tried to railroad him out of the race". And Christian News Wire reports that Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation, two anti-abortion lobbies under the guidance of Troy Newman, issued a statement declaring the organizations' support for Rep. Akin:
We stand with Todd Akin in his bid to win the Senate seat in Missouri contested by his pro-abortion opponent, Democrat Claire McCaskill.
Akin was attacked by Democrats when he made an unfortunate comment about "legitimate rape" and its consequences, a comment for which he has sincerely apologized and repudiated. Instead of being supported by the Republican Party, many panicked at the tempest in a teapot stirred up by the pro-abortion crowd and withdrew support for Akin. This panic spread to others who have withheld funding in an attempt to force him out of the race.
Instead of rebuking the abortion crowd and the divisive politics of the Democratic Party, many Republicans—but certainly not all—wrongly turned to devour one of their own.
We encourage Todd Akin to stand up to the pro-abortion bullies who are bent on destroying him and rebuff the timid Republicans that want to avoid abortion controversies at all costs, even if those costs include the loss of a critical seat in the Senate and perhaps even a Senate majority.
Akin was attacked by Democrats when he made an unfortunate comment about "legitimate rape" and its consequences, a comment for which he has sincerely apologized and repudiated. Instead of being supported by the Republican Party, many panicked at the tempest in a teapot stirred up by the pro-abortion crowd and withdrew support for Akin. This panic spread to others who have withheld funding in an attempt to force him out of the race.
Instead of rebuking the abortion crowd and the divisive politics of the Democratic Party, many Republicans—but certainly not all—wrongly turned to devour one of their own.
We encourage Todd Akin to stand up to the pro-abortion bullies who are bent on destroying him and rebuff the timid Republicans that want to avoid abortion controversies at all costs, even if those costs include the loss of a critical seat in the Senate and perhaps even a Senate majority.
The GOP finds itself in an uncomfortable moment; party leaders, finding their dirty laundry hanging out in open daylight, have rushed to denounce Akin and hope to push him from his senate race. But with House Republicans pushing legislation aiming to force poor children and mentally incompetent people to babies, Party leaders have so far been unable to divorce themselves from the enthusiastic—even vicious—and ill-educated social-conservative base bloc. Republicans still need their conservative votes, but it gets harder to woo the swing bloc amid such a crazed cacophony.
It's a hard time for Republicans. Leonard Pitts, Jr. notes:
Still, this is not about one congressman's need for sensitivity training and remedial science. Akin is hardly unique, after all.
To the contrary, he is just the latest vivid example of conservatism's unrelenting hostility toward women's reproductive rights—as in a Texas judge who just upheld the state's ban on Planned Parenthood.
Indeed, even as this controversy was simmering, the GOP unveiled a proposed platform plank calling for a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. It's a plank Akin himself could have written.
But he is emblematic of more than hardcore opposition to abortion. In him, one also senses the juvenile discomfort with which some male conservatives are afflicted at the merest suggestion of female sexuality.
Think then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, piously covering the breasts of the "Spirit of Justice" statue at the Department of Justice. Think then-Rep. Tom Coburn decrying the "full frontal nudity" of a movie broadcast on television—the movie being "Schindler's List," the nudes being doomed European Jews.
Think Republicans banning Rep. Lisa Brown from the Michigan statehouse for using the word "vagina"—as opposed, perhaps, to "lady parts," "third base" or "tunnel of love." Think Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut because she has, presumably, on occasion had sex.
It's the kind of behavior one associates with a locker room full of adolescent boys, waiting for their faces to clear up and their voices to change. But these are men. Worse, they are men who are judged competent to make, interpret or influence laws impacting the most intimate decisions a woman can make.
Including, for example, whether she must have a probe stuck up her "lady parts" before being allowed to terminate a pregnancy.
To the contrary, he is just the latest vivid example of conservatism's unrelenting hostility toward women's reproductive rights—as in a Texas judge who just upheld the state's ban on Planned Parenthood.
Indeed, even as this controversy was simmering, the GOP unveiled a proposed platform plank calling for a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. It's a plank Akin himself could have written.
But he is emblematic of more than hardcore opposition to abortion. In him, one also senses the juvenile discomfort with which some male conservatives are afflicted at the merest suggestion of female sexuality.
Think then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, piously covering the breasts of the "Spirit of Justice" statue at the Department of Justice. Think then-Rep. Tom Coburn decrying the "full frontal nudity" of a movie broadcast on television—the movie being "Schindler's List," the nudes being doomed European Jews.
Think Republicans banning Rep. Lisa Brown from the Michigan statehouse for using the word "vagina"—as opposed, perhaps, to "lady parts," "third base" or "tunnel of love." Think Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut because she has, presumably, on occasion had sex.
It's the kind of behavior one associates with a locker room full of adolescent boys, waiting for their faces to clear up and their voices to change. But these are men. Worse, they are men who are judged competent to make, interpret or influence laws impacting the most intimate decisions a woman can make.
Including, for example, whether she must have a probe stuck up her "lady parts" before being allowed to terminate a pregnancy.
This has been a strange year for the relationship between Republicans and reality. For months, now, conservatives have tried to fend off accusations of a "war on women"; Mitt Romney even went so far as to argue that President Obama is conducting a willful war on women.
But 2011's H.R. 3, which attempted to proscribe the definition of rape so that federal funds could not be used to terminate pregnancies resulting from statutory rape—you know, the illegitimate kind, since even though one is not considered able to properly consent, they gave consent?—no longer stands in a vacuum. Myriad anti-abortion laws that have obsessed state house Republicans since the 2010 midterm victory, no longer stand in a vacuum—neither time restrictions nor TRAP laws nor forced vaginal penetration can be excluded from the question of misogyny. Arguments about whether or not one's conscience can demand religious discrimination in women's health insurance can no longer be held alone as an issue.
The problem for Republicans is not necessarily what liberals would presume, that conservatives hold such morally broken beliefs. Rather, the problem is that Republicans seem to know that the political rhetoric reflects moral detritus. The anti-abortion movement has asserted this magic contraception for years, as the theory's primary proponent is a former head of National Right to Life, and the founder of International Right to Life Federation and current president of the Life Issues Institute. This is a fundamental aspect of how social conservatives view women; it does not effectively confine itself to abortion exclusively—the mind generally does not, regardless of how spastic it might get, have ways of shutting that down.
Why should Republicans not come out and say, "Todd Akin is right"? It's the same sort of question as wondering why Republicans try to portray anti-abortion as pro-woman; why not just stand on the argument that no, a woman does not have this right over her own body? There still exists an abstract question of what happens to a woman's body, legally, when she becomes pregnant under a life-at-conception outlook. Why do Republicans not step up and say, "It's true: We believe that when a female decides to consent to sex, she is willfully risking her human rights."
True, there are some who genuinely believe that evil forces—communists, the Devil, homosexuals, whatever—have so glamourized the people that such dialogue is impossible. But judging by the people I've known over the years who have been willing to vote for Republicans on a broader scale, it is impossible to assert that this delusional cosmic dualism represents the majority of conservatives.
Yet, what does that leave? Perhaps it is simply that conservatives want established answers to questions that do not necessarily have them. That, though, would still imply something neurotic; one wonders what germinates at the nexus.
In the end, though, to consider those I've known who have been willing Republican voters, there is some insight to be gleaned. A lot of these people adopted an abortion platform without thinking it through because they were following another conservative cause, such as economics or war. These are the voters who terrify the Republican establishment right now. If those voters start to think the issue through, they will do what many of their neighbors have over the years. No, getting lib does not answer every question in the Universe. Indeed, some would suggest—and I think rightly—that it actually compels even more questions. But they look at their daughters and sisters and wives and mothers and start to recognize the faces of the political rhetoric. For these people, to believe that a woman has magical anti-rape contraception built in is just too much of a stretch. To accept that the women they know must risk suspension of their humanity every time they have sex is just too much to ask.
This is what Republicans know; at least, the savvy ones. And it is a cold political calculation; capitalistic, even, if one accepts that not all currency is measured in monetary terms.
They need that social-conservative base. It's been vitally important to the shape of the Republican Party since 1980, at least. And it is true that the Republican establishment has squelched them when they thought they could see real victory. But that's the thing: The Party knows.
One need not be an analyst to read these metrics. At its core, the anti-abortion movement must necessarily presume certain truths, established answers that are beyond question. At its core, the anti-abortion movement relies on a sense of empowerment to drive its people. And at its core, these established answers, and the empowerment they point to, are problematic; that's why the moral beliefs seem broken. And it's also why the Party wants to put miles between itself and Todd Akin.
This is not a discussion Republicans want to have in close quarters right now.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "This Week in God". The Maddow Blog. August 25, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 26, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/25/13474980-this-week-in-god
Tashman, Brian. "Fischer Says Media Treating Akin Like Pharisees Treated Jesus". Right Wing Watch. August 21, 2012. RightWingWatch.org. August 26, 2012. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-media-akin-pharisees-treated-jesus
—————. "Bryan Fischer Says Todd Akin is Like a Victim of Rape". Right Wing Watch. August 21, 2012. RightWingWatch.org. August 26, 2012. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bryan-fischer-says-todd-akin-victim-rape
Carey, Nick. "Todd Akin Keeps Support Of Missouri Conservatives Who Blast Republican 'Establishment'". Reuters. August 24, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. August 26, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/todd-akin-missouri_n_1826778.html
Christian News Wire. "President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation Troy Newman Stands With Todd Akin". Opposing Views. August 24, 2012. OpposingViews.com. August 26, 2012. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/reli...gainst-divisive-politics-personal-destruction
Pitts, Leonard. "Todd Akin's ignorance is hardly unique". Mercury News. August 26, 2012. MercuryNews.com. August 26, 2012. http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_21394668/leonard-pitts-jr-todd-akins-ignorance-is-hardly
See Also:
O'Bryan, Megan. "Todd Akin's statement reflects damaging myths". The Plain Dealer. August 26, 2012. Cleveland.com. August 26, 2012. http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/todd_akins_statement_reflects.html
Cycling Through Myth
Cycling Through Myth
Steve Benen notes that shortly after the '08 election, a reader pointed him toward "a WorldNetDaily item equating liberals with the 'ancient Canaanite practice of Baal worship'."
"I've been a liberal for as long as I can remember," Benen noted four years ago, "and I have to admit, I've never been compared to a Baal worshiper before."
As conservatives cycle through myths religious and otherwise, looking for a way to posture the Republican Party against the storms of a culture war they've been begging for, Ba'al returns to the discussion.
Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee hopes to rally reeling social conservatives:
Benen explains:
The thing is that in the story, God reached down and gave Elijah fire; this was the biblical triumph. What is God going to do this time? Reach down and give women magic anti-rape contraception? Fire is fire; truth is truth. Kindling a flame ought to be no problem for a God who built the Universe in six days; but altering the reality He crafted at so fundamental a level?
Holy warriors of the social conservative movement seem to be simply rolling through the myths, one at a time, hoping to find one that suits the occasion. Bryan Fischer of the AFA has already compared Rep. Todd Akin to Jesus, and denounced his critics as Pharisees. With social-right hardliners squaring off against the GOP elite, we'll probably hear David and Goliath, and perhaps even Jacob and Esau before this is over. Huckabee is already comparing the Republican establishment to "union goons" kneecapping people. "Todd Akin has done nothing but make a mistake for which he has roundly repudiated the comment and apologized," Huckabee explained. "There’s nothing else he can do."
It would appear, though, that abandoning legislative demands derived from the silly magic-contraception myth, is not on the list of things Akin or the Republicans are willing to do. Indeed, it seems the idea is to simply pretend those demands don't really exist. Benen offers a general overview:
It is true that party platforms aren't reflected so tightly in presidential terms, but do not be distracted by that point. After the 2010 midterm focus on jobs and economy, Republicans celebrated their ballot box victory by running a full-court press against abortion, including H.R. 3, which included the distinction between "forcible" and "other" rape.
And let us consider yet again the implications of this distinction: It is about forcing children and the mentally incompetent to give birth.
TRAP laws, forced internal ultrasound probes—what problem? she can just close her eyes—and a heaping helping of other restrictions on abortion provision all make it clear that the abortion argument is powerfully influential on the right. Telling voters to ignore the implications—
—would be an odd tactical decision, except that it's a standard right-wing maneuver. Consider the moment:
It's almost funny: "Unlike President Obama," Romney asserted in April, "you don't have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in—or what my plans are."
Almost.
We see the platform. We see the records. And now we're supposed to believe the Republican Party platform, Rep. Ryan's legislative record, and Mitt Romney's apparent vulnerability to flip-flopping on abortion policy—he vetoed emergency contraceptive access in 2005 as part of a life-at-conception outlook—all have nothing to do with how Mitt Romney would govern if he won the presidency. I guess we don't get to know what his plans really are until after the election.
It is also nearly funny when I consider some of my conservative associates who criticize voter ignorance; it would seem that Republicans need voter ignorance.
Or, well, maybe they need God to reach out His hand and alter the reality He has created, and thus endow women with magic anti-rape ninja antibodies to shut down the whole pregnancy thing.
I wonder if they'll actually get to Ste. Jeanne before Election Day.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "A 'Mount Carmel moment'?" The Maddow Blog. August 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/27/13503987-a-mount-carmel-moment
—————. "Baal Worshippers". Political Animal. December 22, 2008. WashingtonMonthly.com. August 27, 2012. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_12/016157.php
—————. "Why reproductive rights have the GOP on the defensive". The Maddow Blog. August 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...oductive-rights-have-the-gop-on-the-defensive
Hohman, James. "Mike Huckabee rallies Southern Baptists for Todd Akin". Politico. August 24, 2012. Politico.com. August 27, 2012. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80130.html
Cycling Through Myth
Steve Benen notes that shortly after the '08 election, a reader pointed him toward "a WorldNetDaily item equating liberals with the 'ancient Canaanite practice of Baal worship'."
"I've been a liberal for as long as I can remember," Benen noted four years ago, "and I have to admit, I've never been compared to a Baal worshiper before."
As conservatives cycle through myths religious and otherwise, looking for a way to posture the Republican Party against the storms of a culture war they've been begging for, Ba'al returns to the discussion.
Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee hopes to rally reeling social conservatives:
“This could be a Mount Carmel moment,” said the former Arkansas governor, referring to the holy battle between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in the book of Kings. “You know, you bring your gods. We’ll bring ours. We’ll see whose God answers the prayers and brings fire from heaven. That’s kind of where I’m praying: that there will be fire from heaven, and we’ll see it clearly, and everyone else will to.”
(Hohman)
(Hohman)
Benen explains:
For those unfamiliar with the history, Huckabee is describing a specific Biblical event—Elijah challenging Baal worshipers for control of the kingdom.
In other words, in this little comparison, it seems Huckabee is characterizing Todd Akin's critics—a group that would presumably include Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment—as members of a pagan cult. The former Arkansas governor is suggesting a holy war, confident that his God is superior to their God.
Did I mention that Huckabee is getting a prime-time slot at the Republican convention?
In other words, in this little comparison, it seems Huckabee is characterizing Todd Akin's critics—a group that would presumably include Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment—as members of a pagan cult. The former Arkansas governor is suggesting a holy war, confident that his God is superior to their God.
Did I mention that Huckabee is getting a prime-time slot at the Republican convention?
The thing is that in the story, God reached down and gave Elijah fire; this was the biblical triumph. What is God going to do this time? Reach down and give women magic anti-rape contraception? Fire is fire; truth is truth. Kindling a flame ought to be no problem for a God who built the Universe in six days; but altering the reality He crafted at so fundamental a level?
Holy warriors of the social conservative movement seem to be simply rolling through the myths, one at a time, hoping to find one that suits the occasion. Bryan Fischer of the AFA has already compared Rep. Todd Akin to Jesus, and denounced his critics as Pharisees. With social-right hardliners squaring off against the GOP elite, we'll probably hear David and Goliath, and perhaps even Jacob and Esau before this is over. Huckabee is already comparing the Republican establishment to "union goons" kneecapping people. "Todd Akin has done nothing but make a mistake for which he has roundly repudiated the comment and apologized," Huckabee explained. "There’s nothing else he can do."
It would appear, though, that abandoning legislative demands derived from the silly magic-contraception myth, is not on the list of things Akin or the Republicans are willing to do. Indeed, it seems the idea is to simply pretend those demands don't really exist. Benen offers a general overview:
Late last week, the RNC's Sean Spicer ran into some trouble when asked about rape and incest exemptions in his party's national platform. He argued that the platform doesn't explicitly say there can't be exemptions, so who knows, maybe they exist.
As Tricia noted earlier, Virginia Gov. Bob "Ultrasound" McDonnell (R) was asked a similar question on ABC yesterday, and gave a similar answer. When George Stephanopoulos brought up the platform and its support for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, McDonnell, who oversaw the platform process, said, "The details certainly are left to Congress and, ultimately, to the states and the people on how they ratify such an amendment."
As a factual matter, McDonnell and Spicer are simply wrong. The Republican platform demands a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions, regardless of, to use Paul Ryan's phrase, "the method of conception."
As Tricia noted earlier, Virginia Gov. Bob "Ultrasound" McDonnell (R) was asked a similar question on ABC yesterday, and gave a similar answer. When George Stephanopoulos brought up the platform and its support for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, McDonnell, who oversaw the platform process, said, "The details certainly are left to Congress and, ultimately, to the states and the people on how they ratify such an amendment."
As a factual matter, McDonnell and Spicer are simply wrong. The Republican platform demands a constitutional amendment that would ban all abortions, regardless of, to use Paul Ryan's phrase, "the method of conception."
It is true that party platforms aren't reflected so tightly in presidential terms, but do not be distracted by that point. After the 2010 midterm focus on jobs and economy, Republicans celebrated their ballot box victory by running a full-court press against abortion, including H.R. 3, which included the distinction between "forcible" and "other" rape.
And let us consider yet again the implications of this distinction: It is about forcing children and the mentally incompetent to give birth.
TRAP laws, forced internal ultrasound probes—what problem? she can just close her eyes—and a heaping helping of other restrictions on abortion provision all make it clear that the abortion argument is powerfully influential on the right. Telling voters to ignore the implications—
On Fox News yesterday, Mitt Romney expressed his frustration with Democrats trying to tie him to Akin, saying it's "sad" for the Obama campaign to "stoop to such a low level."
In reality, however, Akin's position on the federal government forcing women to take their pregnancy to term if they are impregnated by a rapist has been embraced by Romney's running mate and Romney's platform. Democrats aren't supposed to even mention this?
In reality, however, Akin's position on the federal government forcing women to take their pregnancy to term if they are impregnated by a rapist has been embraced by Romney's running mate and Romney's platform. Democrats aren't supposed to even mention this?
—would be an odd tactical decision, except that it's a standard right-wing maneuver. Consider the moment:
• Don't worry about the party platform, Republicans tell us of Mitt Romney's campaign. However ...
• ... if Romney and Republicans win in November, and then go on to pursue their clearly-defined anti-abortion agenda, then voters will have to admit they knew beforehand, since it was in the party platform, the presidential candidate sometimes acknowledged his support for such measures, and the vice presidential candidate actually cosponsored this kind of bill during his time in the House of Representatives.
• ... if Romney and Republicans win in November, and then go on to pursue their clearly-defined anti-abortion agenda, then voters will have to admit they knew beforehand, since it was in the party platform, the presidential candidate sometimes acknowledged his support for such measures, and the vice presidential candidate actually cosponsored this kind of bill during his time in the House of Representatives.
It's almost funny: "Unlike President Obama," Romney asserted in April, "you don't have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in—or what my plans are."
Almost.
We see the platform. We see the records. And now we're supposed to believe the Republican Party platform, Rep. Ryan's legislative record, and Mitt Romney's apparent vulnerability to flip-flopping on abortion policy—he vetoed emergency contraceptive access in 2005 as part of a life-at-conception outlook—all have nothing to do with how Mitt Romney would govern if he won the presidency. I guess we don't get to know what his plans really are until after the election.
It is also nearly funny when I consider some of my conservative associates who criticize voter ignorance; it would seem that Republicans need voter ignorance.
Or, well, maybe they need God to reach out His hand and alter the reality He has created, and thus endow women with magic anti-rape ninja antibodies to shut down the whole pregnancy thing.
I wonder if they'll actually get to Ste. Jeanne before Election Day.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "A 'Mount Carmel moment'?" The Maddow Blog. August 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/27/13503987-a-mount-carmel-moment
—————. "Baal Worshippers". Political Animal. December 22, 2008. WashingtonMonthly.com. August 27, 2012. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_12/016157.php
—————. "Why reproductive rights have the GOP on the defensive". The Maddow Blog. August 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...oductive-rights-have-the-gop-on-the-defensive
Hohman, James. "Mike Huckabee rallies Southern Baptists for Todd Akin". Politico. August 24, 2012. Politico.com. August 27, 2012. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80130.html
The Band Plays On
The Band Plays On ... and the Hits Keep Coming
There is no adequate setup for this one; Eric Kleefeld brings us the story for TPM:
As for commentary, Steve Benen gets the first go:
It's actually quite telling; pressed by an AP reporter as to how his daughter's pregnancy was similar to rape from pregnancy, Smith responded, "Uh, having a baby out of wedlock."
Really? That's it? That's all? Why don't I tell a woman I know what giving birth is like because I've been constipated. You know, we've both worked hard to expel something from our lower bodies. I mean, sure, it's accurate to a certain degree. But that certain degree is entirely useless.
But we see in Mr. Smith's outlook a fascinating glimpse inside the social conservative mind.
Does Mr. Smith understand what it's like to be raped because Joey Josephson gave him a five-second wet willie in fourth grade? You know, something unwanted being inserted into a bodily orifice?
There is a curious perversion of sexuality running through the social conservative movement. They have long compared homosexual intercourse to child rape; one would think the notion of consent has gone a little funky in their minds. Which brings us to "legitimate", "forcible" rape. You know, because statutory rape isn't "real" rape, since even though we say these people cannot give their consent, they gave consent. And the question of consent does not seem to be anywhere in Mr. Smith's outlook, either: "Put yourself in a father's situation, yes."
Well, I am a father, and you know, if my daughter consented to sex with someone, I probably would think it's rape since, well, she's nine. But at some point, she will be old enough to make such decisions, and no, I do not get to compare her free consent to rape when that happens.
And when matched up with the idea of magic uterine warriors, it's a little cartoonish ....
What is it with social conservative issues pertaining to human sexual function that consent is a beach ball to be slapped back up in the air every time it comes near them?
It's almost like we're pronouncing "Republican" wrongly.
____________________
Notes:
Kleefeld, Eric. "Pennsylvania Senate Candidate: Daughter's Out-Of-Wedlock Pregnancy 'Similar' To Rape". Talking Points Memo. August 27, 2012. 2012.TalkingPointsMemo.com. August 27, 2012. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...mith-senate-pregnancy-rape-unwed-daughter.php
Benen, Steve. "From Todd Akin to Tom Smith". The Maddow Blog. August 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/27/13509930-from-todd-akin-to-tom-smith
The Band Plays On ... and the Hits Keep Coming
There is no adequate setup for this one; Eric Kleefeld brings us the story for TPM:
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith is the latest Republican to bungle a response to Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's controversial comment about rape and pregnancy.
"What that congressman said I do not agree with at all. He should have never said anything like that," Smith told reporters Monday, according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News, during a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg Monday—referring to Akin's suggestion that women's bodies can block a pregnancy from rape.
"I lived something similar to that with my own family," Smith said. He then described his daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy—from consensual sex.
"She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views but fortunately for me ... she chose the way I thought. Now don't get me wrong. It wasn't rape."
Smith affirmed that he believed his daughter's pregnancy from consensual sex was similar to a rape. "Put yourself in a father's position, yes, I mean it is similar."
"What that congressman said I do not agree with at all. He should have never said anything like that," Smith told reporters Monday, according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News, during a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg Monday—referring to Akin's suggestion that women's bodies can block a pregnancy from rape.
"I lived something similar to that with my own family," Smith said. He then described his daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy—from consensual sex.
"She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views but fortunately for me ... she chose the way I thought. Now don't get me wrong. It wasn't rape."
Smith affirmed that he believed his daughter's pregnancy from consensual sex was similar to a rape. "Put yourself in a father's position, yes, I mean it is similar."
As for commentary, Steve Benen gets the first go:
Keep in mind, this isn't some fringe Republican activist. Tom Smith, a Tea Partier, won the statewide GOP primary; he introduced vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan just last week at an event in Carnegie, Pennsylvania; and he was on hand for a fundraiser with Mitt Romney just last month.
And in this guy's mind, a rape pregnancy and out-of-wedlock pregnancy are "similar." Indeed, let's also not overlook this choice of words regarding his daughter: "[F]ortunately for me ... she chose the way I thought." Unbelievable.
And in this guy's mind, a rape pregnancy and out-of-wedlock pregnancy are "similar." Indeed, let's also not overlook this choice of words regarding his daughter: "[F]ortunately for me ... she chose the way I thought." Unbelievable.
It's actually quite telling; pressed by an AP reporter as to how his daughter's pregnancy was similar to rape from pregnancy, Smith responded, "Uh, having a baby out of wedlock."
Really? That's it? That's all? Why don't I tell a woman I know what giving birth is like because I've been constipated. You know, we've both worked hard to expel something from our lower bodies. I mean, sure, it's accurate to a certain degree. But that certain degree is entirely useless.
But we see in Mr. Smith's outlook a fascinating glimpse inside the social conservative mind.
Does Mr. Smith understand what it's like to be raped because Joey Josephson gave him a five-second wet willie in fourth grade? You know, something unwanted being inserted into a bodily orifice?
There is a curious perversion of sexuality running through the social conservative movement. They have long compared homosexual intercourse to child rape; one would think the notion of consent has gone a little funky in their minds. Which brings us to "legitimate", "forcible" rape. You know, because statutory rape isn't "real" rape, since even though we say these people cannot give their consent, they gave consent. And the question of consent does not seem to be anywhere in Mr. Smith's outlook, either: "Put yourself in a father's situation, yes."
Well, I am a father, and you know, if my daughter consented to sex with someone, I probably would think it's rape since, well, she's nine. But at some point, she will be old enough to make such decisions, and no, I do not get to compare her free consent to rape when that happens.
And when matched up with the idea of magic uterine warriors, it's a little cartoonish ....
Goku: (winding up) Ka-me-ha-me ....
Krillin: (frantically) Goku! Not in here!
Krillin: (frantically) Goku! Not in here!
What is it with social conservative issues pertaining to human sexual function that consent is a beach ball to be slapped back up in the air every time it comes near them?
It's almost like we're pronouncing "Republican" wrongly.
____________________
Notes:
Kleefeld, Eric. "Pennsylvania Senate Candidate: Daughter's Out-Of-Wedlock Pregnancy 'Similar' To Rape". Talking Points Memo. August 27, 2012. 2012.TalkingPointsMemo.com. August 27, 2012. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...mith-senate-pregnancy-rape-unwed-daughter.php
Benen, Steve. "From Todd Akin to Tom Smith". The Maddow Blog. August 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. August 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/27/13509930-from-todd-akin-to-tom-smith
Bells
Staff member
Ah, and they keep coming..
Paul Ryan, after discussing akin's comment, the questions then turned to rape and abortion. And Ryan, comes out with a stunning statement last week, on the question of abortion and rape.
Ryan: "The method of conception does not change the definition of life"..
Paul Slansky, is curious as to why this has not been reported on more widely. As he states:
And I have to agree with him. How did this slip by?
Rape is just another method of conception.. Think about it for a moment.
Paul Ryan, after discussing akin's comment, the questions then turned to rape and abortion. And Ryan, comes out with a stunning statement last week, on the question of abortion and rape.
Ryan: "The method of conception does not change the definition of life"..
Paul Slansky, is curious as to why this has not been reported on more widely. As he states:
Last week, Paul Ryan gave an interview in which, defending his position that there should be no excuses for abortion, he referred to rape as a "method of conception."
Wow, right? Talk about a benign euphemism. Rape -- RAPE! -- is now a "method of conception." You know, like love-making, just without the love.
Wow, right? Talk about a benign euphemism. Rape -- RAPE! -- is now a "method of conception." You know, like love-making, just without the love.
And I have to agree with him. How did this slip by?
Rape is just another method of conception.. Think about it for a moment.
(Insert Title Here)
Because the outrage is primarily moral.
True, it would have been better for him to say, "... regardless of how a woman becomes pregnant", but ... well, okay, you know how sometimes I use particular, even peculiar phrasing? "Method of conception" falls within the range of applicable phrasings for me insofar as it is functionally accurate and markedly general.
I'm not insensate toward the moral outrage, but I also feel like taking the moment to excoriate him for it is useless. That is, there is another spectre here to call out and banish.
Perhaps you might recall the 2011 thread, "It's a child, not a choice ... but not if you were raped"?
As I noted at the time, "It's a matter of appearances being more important than principles."
Perhaps it's a political maneuver on my part, but it seems to me that as the GOP verges on actually looking that problem in the eye, the "method of conception" remark isn't going to rile me; there's something bigger about to happen, maybe.
To the other, I can't speak for the press.
But think of it this way:
And, yes, that third point is insensitive to the realities of the person in the first point. It's not that I am not at least abstractly offended, but in the larger scheme, I don't know—the media is superficial and lazy; it is equally possible that they do not wish to go there for whatever reasons of commerce, or that they are simply incapable of going there. For me, I see the phrasing as symptomatic of something really, really cool that might be just about to happen in the public discourse. You want odds? I don't know; I'll probably be disappointed. But we're very close to social conservatives standing, face to face, in full daylight, before that question of what they're really after. If this really is about saving the babies and all that, conservatives must reconcile their focus on mothers. And that will be a spectacular, perhaps even useful, encounter.
Beyond that, though, which seems almost too much to hope for, the media is lazy and superficial; the outrage itself is purely moral and depends on perspective. Blasting Ryan for this would insert the media even further as a player in the game instead of a reporter of the play. And when the moral offense is so conditional, things get even more hazy.
But there is another possibility. At its heart, the current anti-abortion mood is really, really ugly according to the otherwise normal outlook of American politics and decency. And that's the dirty secret. Even if a mediazzi is literally so dulled by the news cycle as to not comprehend everything taking place, he or she still can feel the abstract "something" taking place.
The flotsam of stupidity coming from the right wing might well be overwhelming the media, but, to mix the metaphor, there are so many pieces that the mosaic is starting to resolve. My question is whether any of the super-PACs are actually worth their money; I mean, Republicans are trying to erode the implications of child rape. Holy ... shit ....
And each of these little pieces, the detritus of platform and plank, resolve the picture more clearly. This anti-statch point has been floating around for eighteen months—
—and for some reason, Republicans can't move away from it.
And let us be clear: Anyone can be "anti-statch" insofar as they don't want grown-ups having sex with children, but Republicans are "anti-statch" insofar as they want to spay the legal implications of statutory rape.
The "method of conception"? Sure, it's an annoying way to put it, all things considered. But it's also, as I see it, a much smaller question. Fine, that's how Ryan wants to say it, that works for me. He's only resolving the picture in a way that brings certain questions to the fore, and the answers to those questions might well "settle" the abortion question for another ten years until the GOP decides to try again.
The dirty little (open) secret of Republican misogyny has stumbled through a sunbeam; what next? Can Republicans beat this demon back under the bed, or will it have its moment in the light?
Functionally, at least, in terms of the political drama itself, Ryan's phrasing only reiterates the questions that need to be asked. If the media passes him on this point, it's not the worst thing in the world. If, however, the media lets Republicans hide away the dirty little secret or, worse yet, abets the process, then all of this bad feeling social conservatives are working so hard to inspire will have been for nothing.
Bells said:
Because the outrage is primarily moral.
True, it would have been better for him to say, "... regardless of how a woman becomes pregnant", but ... well, okay, you know how sometimes I use particular, even peculiar phrasing? "Method of conception" falls within the range of applicable phrasings for me insofar as it is functionally accurate and markedly general.
I'm not insensate toward the moral outrage, but I also feel like taking the moment to excoriate him for it is useless. That is, there is another spectre here to call out and banish.
Perhaps you might recall the 2011 thread, "It's a child, not a choice ... but not if you were raped"?
"Would anyone like to explain the logic of the idea that abortion is wrong because a 'child' has the right to live, but not if you were raped?" —Visceral Instinct
As I noted at the time, "It's a matter of appearances being more important than principles."
Perhaps it's a political maneuver on my part, but it seems to me that as the GOP verges on actually looking that problem in the eye, the "method of conception" remark isn't going to rile me; there's something bigger about to happen, maybe.
To the other, I can't speak for the press.
But think of it this way:
• If you are the rape survivor trying to resolve the resulting pregnancy, it's probably a little hard to think of rape as a "method of conception".
• If you are the doctor performing the abortion, the "method of conception" is important because it might have other implications regarding the health of the mother.
• If you are "pro-life", the "method of conception" ought to be—on principle, anyway—irrelevant to the pro-life question.
• If you are the doctor performing the abortion, the "method of conception" is important because it might have other implications regarding the health of the mother.
• If you are "pro-life", the "method of conception" ought to be—on principle, anyway—irrelevant to the pro-life question.
And, yes, that third point is insensitive to the realities of the person in the first point. It's not that I am not at least abstractly offended, but in the larger scheme, I don't know—the media is superficial and lazy; it is equally possible that they do not wish to go there for whatever reasons of commerce, or that they are simply incapable of going there. For me, I see the phrasing as symptomatic of something really, really cool that might be just about to happen in the public discourse. You want odds? I don't know; I'll probably be disappointed. But we're very close to social conservatives standing, face to face, in full daylight, before that question of what they're really after. If this really is about saving the babies and all that, conservatives must reconcile their focus on mothers. And that will be a spectacular, perhaps even useful, encounter.
Beyond that, though, which seems almost too much to hope for, the media is lazy and superficial; the outrage itself is purely moral and depends on perspective. Blasting Ryan for this would insert the media even further as a player in the game instead of a reporter of the play. And when the moral offense is so conditional, things get even more hazy.
But there is another possibility. At its heart, the current anti-abortion mood is really, really ugly according to the otherwise normal outlook of American politics and decency. And that's the dirty secret. Even if a mediazzi is literally so dulled by the news cycle as to not comprehend everything taking place, he or she still can feel the abstract "something" taking place.
The flotsam of stupidity coming from the right wing might well be overwhelming the media, but, to mix the metaphor, there are so many pieces that the mosaic is starting to resolve. My question is whether any of the super-PACs are actually worth their money; I mean, Republicans are trying to erode the implications of child rape. Holy ... shit ....
And each of these little pieces, the detritus of platform and plank, resolve the picture more clearly. This anti-statch point has been floating around for eighteen months—
More accurately, what they did was try to exclude certain kinds of rape from the rape and incest exceptions to the pro-life policy.
To wit: Give a twelve year-old girl some booze, maybe smoke a joint with her, and then have sex with her while she's too loaded to coherently say no.
Under the law, this is statutory rape, at least.
She gets knocked up? Well, according to the failed Republican plan, that wouldn't have counted under the rape and incest consideration. Or, as Nick Bauman put it for Mother Jones: "Rape is only really rape if it involves force."
As a result, a young girl pregnant through statutory rape not only would not be able to receive public assistance for the abortion, her parents would also be forbidden to use a tax-exempt health savings account. Nor would they be able to deduct, as a medical expense, any personal financial costs spent on that abortion.
To wit: Give a twelve year-old girl some booze, maybe smoke a joint with her, and then have sex with her while she's too loaded to coherently say no.
Under the law, this is statutory rape, at least.
She gets knocked up? Well, according to the failed Republican plan, that wouldn't have counted under the rape and incest consideration. Or, as Nick Bauman put it for Mother Jones: "Rape is only really rape if it involves force."
As a result, a young girl pregnant through statutory rape not only would not be able to receive public assistance for the abortion, her parents would also be forbidden to use a tax-exempt health savings account. Nor would they be able to deduct, as a medical expense, any personal financial costs spent on that abortion.
—and for some reason, Republicans can't move away from it.
And let us be clear: Anyone can be "anti-statch" insofar as they don't want grown-ups having sex with children, but Republicans are "anti-statch" insofar as they want to spay the legal implications of statutory rape.
The "method of conception"? Sure, it's an annoying way to put it, all things considered. But it's also, as I see it, a much smaller question. Fine, that's how Ryan wants to say it, that works for me. He's only resolving the picture in a way that brings certain questions to the fore, and the answers to those questions might well "settle" the abortion question for another ten years until the GOP decides to try again.
The dirty little (open) secret of Republican misogyny has stumbled through a sunbeam; what next? Can Republicans beat this demon back under the bed, or will it have its moment in the light?
Functionally, at least, in terms of the political drama itself, Ryan's phrasing only reiterates the questions that need to be asked. If the media passes him on this point, it's not the worst thing in the world. If, however, the media lets Republicans hide away the dirty little secret or, worse yet, abets the process, then all of this bad feeling social conservatives are working so hard to inspire will have been for nothing.
I'm sure sheep and billy goats that have been handled roughly by southern gentlemen would beg to differ. I think even God would look at that with dismay.
(Insert Title Here)
When You're Not Quite Sure What To Say ....
Bloomberg Businessweek offers a glimpse inside Karl Rove's fundraising machine, but the above line from Sheelah Kolhatkar's report keeps getting in the way.
____________________
Notes:
Kolhatkar, Sheelah. "Exclusive: Inside Karl Rove's Billionaire Fundraiser". Bloomberg Businessweek. August 31, 2012. Businessweek.com. August 31, 2012. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-31/exclusive-inside-karl-roves-billionaire-fundraiser
When You're Not Quite Sure What To Say ....
"We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!" —Karl Rove
Bloomberg Businessweek offers a glimpse inside Karl Rove's fundraising machine, but the above line from Sheelah Kolhatkar's report keeps getting in the way.
____________________
Notes:
Kolhatkar, Sheelah. "Exclusive: Inside Karl Rove's Billionaire Fundraiser". Bloomberg Businessweek. August 31, 2012. Businessweek.com. August 31, 2012. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-31/exclusive-inside-karl-roves-billionaire-fundraiser
Well, to be fair, he didn't say it was "just" another method of conception. To say that would be to diminish it as a brutal and disgusting violation. Neither he nor Slansky portray his position as that of rape being "just" anything.
And Ryan was not asked what he thought of rape. Had the question been in that context, and his response been "Rape is a method of conception," then we'd all have good reason to want to flatten his nose. But he was asked about abortion in the case of rape, to which his response was "The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life." While a cowardly and indirect way of saying "I don't believe in exceptions," it doesn't really seem an attempt to diminish what rape actually is.
Then again, one could argue that the very idea of not making an exception for rape speaks to a general ignorance of the phenomenon among the GOP. Like, if they really knew what rape was, they'd make the exception. It's possible that these people don't actually believe rape is a real thing, that it's somehow the woman's fault or that she somehow wanted it to happen. Akin's assertion that "legitimate" rape doesn't result in conception speaks to that notion.
But Was It A Legitimate Rape?
But Was It A Legitimate Rape?
Local news to vaporize a small part of your soul:
So ... um ... I guess the question now is whether or not it was a "legitimate" rape. You know, since the eleven year-old girl had an abortion.
Stay tuned. We'll see what the news brings. Maybe this was one of those "fake" rapes, and the girl should have been forced to carry to term.
Right?
(That last is directed to my Republican neighbors.)
____________________
Notes:
Honcoop, Dillon. "Everson Man Arrested After Horrific Child Abuse". KGMI. September 20, 2012. KGMI.com. September 21, 2012. http://kgmi.com/Everson-Man-Arrested-After-Horrific-Child-Abuse/14288746
But Was It A Legitimate Rape?
Local news to vaporize a small part of your soul:
An Everson man is behind bars after authorities say he impregnated his 11-year-old stepdaughter.
Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo the 30-year-old man was arrested Tuesday on first degree child rape charges, and he says others could be charged for helping cover up the crime.
The investigation began after a doctor told child protective services about an abortion performed on an 11-year-old girl.
Elfo says the girl first claimed the child’s father was a 14-year-old boy, but deputies found the 30-year-old stepfather had actually impregnated her when they lived in the same home in the Lynden area.
(Honcoop)
Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo the 30-year-old man was arrested Tuesday on first degree child rape charges, and he says others could be charged for helping cover up the crime.
The investigation began after a doctor told child protective services about an abortion performed on an 11-year-old girl.
Elfo says the girl first claimed the child’s father was a 14-year-old boy, but deputies found the 30-year-old stepfather had actually impregnated her when they lived in the same home in the Lynden area.
(Honcoop)
So ... um ... I guess the question now is whether or not it was a "legitimate" rape. You know, since the eleven year-old girl had an abortion.
Stay tuned. We'll see what the news brings. Maybe this was one of those "fake" rapes, and the girl should have been forced to carry to term.
Right?
(That last is directed to my Republican neighbors.)
____________________
Notes:
Honcoop, Dillon. "Everson Man Arrested After Horrific Child Abuse". KGMI. September 20, 2012. KGMI.com. September 21, 2012. http://kgmi.com/Everson-Man-Arrested-After-Horrific-Child-Abuse/14288746