head vs. wall While Rep. Brown says the bill is intended to punish people who commit sex crimes and then coerce the victim into having an abortion, why can't Republicans ever think of these things on the front side? You know, like maybe writing the bill to accomplish that? Furthermore, given that the bill won't go anywhere in a Democratic-controlled legislature, what is the point of even introducing the bill? I don't think putting a woman's name on the bill does anything to mitigate the big Republican "fuck you" of such a proposition. If the bill actually passed, though, and withstood judicial tests, I wonder how many rape survivors would go to prison while their rapists are let off the hook because, apparently, nobody in New Mexico knows how to check DNA drawn from an aborted fetus? I really regret the preceding paragraph. Is this really how the Republican Party wants the dialogue to go? What the hell is wrong with these people?
Kasich Answers the Call Where Does One Begin? This treads into so many smaller, sideshow issues that I've lost count. To the other, it is also one of those occasions when it doesn't do us much to remind of Republicans complaining that a bill devised through a legislative process they refused to participate in was being rushed through and nobody had time to read it. Small things. Little quirks. And all overshadowed by an incredible beast: Everything about these new measures in the Buckeye State is quite jarring. For one thing, this was a budget bill, not legislation intended to address women's health and/or abortion. For another, these provisions were added as amendments to the budget at the last minute, without debate, and without hearings in which lawmakers could hear, or even consider, the effects on those who'll suffer as a result of the new policies. And the policies themselves are nothing short of breathtaking in their scope: * Rape crisis centers will operate under a state-imposed gag order—rape-crisis counselors will face new restrictions when telling impregnated rape victims that they can legally terminate their pregnancy. * The budget effectively defunds Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. * There's a provision to require women seeking legal abortions to undergo a state-mandated, medically-unnecessary ultrasound—even if women don't want one, and if their doctor doesn't recommend one. Ohio Republicans proudly declared they want to put themselves between patients and their physicians, prescribing specific procedures for no medical reason. * Women will also be required to pay for state-mandated, medically-unnecessary ultrasounds they do not want and their doctors do not think they need. * Physicians will be legally required to deliver a Republican-written speech to women seeking legal abortions. Whether the doctor believes what's in the script, or even wants to say those words to his or her patient, has been deemed irrelevant. * Clinics that provide abortion services will be required to have transfer agreements with local hospitals, and then bans public hospitals from establishing those agreements, all in the hopes of shutting the clinics down. * And Republican policymakers in the state decided to redefine the words "pregnancy" and "fetus" in state law—the budget decides that a woman is pregnant even before a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine lining. The effect of this policy may prevent a woman from using an IUD in the state of Ohio. (Benen) And the thing is that Gov. Kasich (R) has a line-item veto. He struck a budget provision intended to muck up Obamacare, but left all of these anti-abortion policies intact. Trap laws? Birth control restrictions? Well, sure, we're accustomed to this from American conservatives; these are among the reasons a spectre of misogyny persists about conservative politics. In the budget? No debate, no research, no real thought? Sure, there are small issues like ramming through legislation, inappropriate budgetary riders, disruptive government regulation, assertion of the state between doctor and patient, therapist and client. It is easy enough to point out how unconservative this mess is. But, in truth, hypocrisy is a small issue in this; after all, they're Republicans, so we can reasonably expect it. That's all mere politics. The cruel vice of this legislation, and the governor's refusal to exercise his line-item power to stop it—thus directly and explicitly endorsing it—are benchmark and bellwether, even leaving the belfry aside. The implications, potential and likely consequences, are enormous. Cyclopean. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Ohio's Kasich approves sweeping restrictions on reproductive rights". The Maddow Blog. July 1, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. July 1, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...-sweeping-restrictions-on-reproductive-rights
NC GOP Pearl Harbors Women With Sharia Bill My ... Oh ... My It should suffice to simply say the MSNBC video of North Carolina State Senate Minority Leader Martin Nesbitt (D-49) responding to ... okay, this is a mouthful of disbelief so I need to prepare to say it correctly ... an eleventh-hour blindside package of anti-abortion legislation tacked onto what is ostensibly an anti-sharia bill .... Okay, right. If you are confused, well, yes. That's supposed to happen, I think. Perhaps we ought to check in with Mark Binker of WRAL: Senators tacked a suite of new restrictions and regulations pertaining to abortion clinics onto a bill dealing with the application of foreign laws in North Carolina family courts Tuesday. The measure was unveiled unexpectedly during an unusual late-day committee meeting Tuesday. It combines several bills in different stages of the legislative process into one omnibus measure. "It just took a while for there to be a consensus of support for it within our caucus," said Sen. Buck Newton, R-Wilson, the chairman of the Judiciary 1 committee. "Sometimes these things come together at the last minute." Newton's committee was originally scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. this morning. That committee was canceled. The Senate met for much of the day, handling a variety of bills in other committees and on the floor. Just before 5:20 p.m., Senate Rules Chairman Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, announced that there would be a recess and that the Senate Judiciary 1 Committee would meet at 5:30 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m., the measure on the committee's calendar only reflected a bill that dealt with the family law provisions of the bill. That measure itself was controversial when it cleared the House, with opponents fearing it could interfere with recognition of U.S. law in foreign courts. However, almost immediately, the committee took up an amendment to the bill that dealt with abortion. "They're doing it quietly on 4th of July weekend because they've seen what's going on in Texas and know that women will turn out," Melissa Reed, VP of Public Policy for Planned Parenthood Health Systems said, referring to the protests surrounding a similar bill in Texas. She said Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice advocates had no idea the measure would be taken up today. Lobbyists with nonprofits that have religious or moral purposes, including the Family Policy Council, Christian Action League and N.C. Values Coalition, were in the room for the committee debate and the subsequent Senate floor debate. Senators noted that those lobbyists were given notice of the bill and its contents ahead of time. Abortion conscience clause of unknown scope. Prohibition of federal funds towrd abortions. Prohibition against public employee health plans covering abortions. Sex selective abortions. Possibly requiring a doctor to directly attend the patient for two days—there is a question of the letter versus (ahem!) "spirit" of the law. Extraneous regulations intended to force certain clinics to close for bureaucratic reasons. Sen. Nesbitt's speech is wonderful, at once demonstrative of patriarchy in effect—"provide women's health care to women", or, "mammiogram"—while ferociously defending women's human status: Members of the Senate, you've heard this in several statements tonight, but I feel like we've got to repeat it, and we've got to understand it easier: We're treating this place as if it's ours, to do with as we please. The fifty of us. Actually, I the thirty-three of you. And that all that matters is whether you prevail in here. Those rules were put in place not so you could suspend them and beat us; you can beat us every day, all day—we don't have enough votes. They were put on there because there's a process out here where the public gets to see what we're doing. You put a committee substitute online the night before so the public can get it. They can get it, we can get it; everybody has a chance to look at it. Now we're in here debating a bill that's going to affect better than half our population, directly, and the rest of them indirectly. They haven't had a chance to look at any of this. And I heard in the committee, and I've heard on this floor—well, I was told it's my thinking. The bill was intended. This bill's not had any scrutiny and we don't know what it does. We've kind of got an idea. Y'all got an idea, and I got an idea. I'm going to give you a couple of my ideas here in a minute. But the most important thing is we got a state full of people out there that don't even know we're down here doing it. And let me tell you what I think you're doing to them. I think the provision having to do with ambulatory care centers is going to do away with health care as we know it for women who need help. And there are going to be more of them, not less of them. When you force these things into ambulatory surgical center, Planned Parenthood has four centers in the state—none of them comply. Out of business. Nobody told us that in committee. I scurried around and got that information myself. That crowd that is going to descend on you when you get back down here is going to know it. It is a frontal attack on these facilities that offer women's health care to women—things they need, mammograms, et cetera. You are eliminating abortion coverage for people who may be anti-abortion but may need one later in life. Now the way I understand the way the exchanges were set up, no you can't use government money for that procedure. But they were going to provide something for women to purchase separately, with their own money. You're trying to cut that off, to where no woman will have abortion coverage. What happens if her life is in danger? What happens if she's a victim of rape and incest? What happens if it's your daughter, or your granddaughter, and they need help? And your policy that you have doesn't cover abortion. Alright, everybody in here can pay for it. That ain't no problem. Well everybody out there can't pay for it, and you have health insurance for a reason—and it's to cover all these contingencies. Not only are we saying that to people who might be in our health exchange, we're saying to local governments and you can't do it either. Now, you all watch the news just like I do. I don't how much you watched about Texas. We're sitting in here tonight, and you're going to win this debate and feel really good about yourselves, because you—all you big grown-up gray-haired men—have beat three women. I want to see what you do with about ten thousand of them, 'cause they're coming. They're coming. They're not going to put up with you doing to this to them in the dark of the night, in the middle of a holiday week— [Interjection: Mr. President, can you please tell me what time it is and is the sun still out?] It's eight o'clock at night, on Tuesday night. We're back in session on a bill that wasn't even on the calendar at six o'clock. [Interjection: Mr. President, I want to object to third reading right now, so we can talk tomorrow, more, when the sun is out.] I think that would be a wonderful idea when the time comes. And then by tomorrow some people in the public will know about this bill and be able to tell us what it does. I don't know how much more I can say. I can tell you this: You cannot keep doing this to the general public of this state. You got people already marching on this place, and that's over how we've been behaving. And you start dragging up a committee meeting, no notice to the public, go down there and do a bill that disenfranchises women to this extent—and they're not included in the debate, there's nobody there from their side to even speak for them—and bring the bill up here; and I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, I meant tell the truth on this stuff, because this is bad, bad business, and this is not our place to abuse. This place deserves more respect than to do this kind of thing to the people. Truth told, I believe Sen. Nesbitt has done his part for the moment. You know, it's one of those things that a man is supposed to stay out of, except that other men who won't stay out of it won't listen to the women. And it really does have some old-timey southern charm. Mammiograms. Yes, I transcribed it as "mammograms", but really, it's worth watching the speech. Game on in North Carolina. Apropos of something, I'm sure. ____________________ Notes: Fernia, Will. "NC Senator Nesbitt busts GOP for sneak attack in war on women". The Maddow Blog. July 2, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. July 2, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...tt-busts-gop-for-sneak-attack-in-war-on-women Binker, Mark. "Senate tacks sweeping abortion legislation onto Sharia law bill". @NCCapitol. July 2, 2013. WRAL.com. July 2, 2013. http://www.wral.com/senate-tacks-sweeping-abortion-legislation-onto-sharia-law-bill/12621503/ Edit/Correction note: I struck a joke after I realized that the cockfighting pun didn't work because I had mixed up the Carolinas. Yes, some days you just end up feeling that stupid.
Follow-Up: Some Salt for the Wound? Follow-Up: Some Salt for the Wound? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Abordget: Ohio Gov. John Kasich, June 30, 2013, signing the state budget. (via MSNBC/Ohio Capital Blog) I thought it worth including the above. The frame is from video of John Kasich signing the controversial budget into law. The young boy on his lap, literally helping him sign the bill, is Felix, a four year-old stage prop in honor of the anti-abortion package so deftly slipped into the budget. The anti-abortion budget. Abordget. The Maddow rant, as you might imagine, was something else: So without debate, without any Republican public comment on the matter whatsoever, the great state of Ohio, as of about last night, dinnertime, Ohio got a ton of new really radical changes in its laws that are all about rape -- rape and abortion. Ohio Republicans stuffed into the budget a gag order for rape counselors. So, if you're counseling a rape victim, you will have public funding yanked from your rape crisis center if you let the rape victim know that she can have an abortion if the rape made her pregnant. It's a gag order. You can't say that anymore or else you'll lose your funding. Also on the budget, Ohio Republicans basically defunded Planned Parenthood clinics. If you want to get an abortion in Ohio, the budget just passed by Ohio Republicans and signed by John Kasich will mandate you get an ultrasound by order of the state which is a fine thing to have if you want one and your doctors want you to have it. But it's a whole different idea because John Kasich says you have to have one, even if you don't want it or your doctor doesn't want you to have it. It's mandatory now. Ohio Republicans will make you have it and they will make you pay for it, too. Ohio Republicans also wrote into the budget a requirement that Ohio doctors give you a speech about that forced ultrasound, regardless of whether the doctor agrees with the speech or thinks it is good information to give you. Ohio Republicans added all of that to the budget, to the nuts and bolts spending plan for the great state of Ohio. Now it has a special focus on the human uterus. For one part of the budget, Ohio Republicans even wrote in a new requirement that any clinic in the state that provides abortions has to have a transfer agreement with local hospitals. Then in the next breath, they banned Ohio public hospitals from making those transfer agreements with the clinics. So, the clinics would get a new thing that they have to have and also they cannot happen. Ohio Republicans and John Kasich also in the budget decided to redefine the word "pregnancy" in that state. Now by decree, from Republican Governor John Kasich and the Republicans in the Ohio state legislature, your pregnancy begins even before implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining. Since several forms of popular birth control work by stopping implantation in the uterine lining, the Ohio state budget now essentially says, hey, you want an IUD or want to be on birth control pills? That means you want an abortion. And now, of course, there's a mandatory ultrasound before you can do that, followed by the speech from your doctor that your doctor doesn't have a choice about. I mean, under this bill, under the letter of this new law, Ohio women might conceivably need to get a mandatory ultrasound by order of the state just so you can keep your birth control pills. The birth control, the IUD, the birth control pill you've been on forever, now mandatory ultrasound? That's how the law is written. Nobody knows for sure if they really freaking mean that or if they have considered that implication of the change in the definition of the word "pregnancy" that they put in the state budget. Nobody knows if that's what they really meant because they never debated it. Never came up. There was no debate. So, nobody got to ask questions. Nobody ever had to explain themselves. Ohio Republicans just passed it silently and sent it to Governor John Kasich. The governor had until midnight last night, midnight, Sunday, to X out rape and abortion laws he wanted to X out. He has a line item veto, could have taken any of them out of the budget. He used the line-item veto 22 times yesterday, including vetoing part of budget that involves owning spider monkeys. He thought the spider monkeys provision was an outrageous step backwards for the residents of Ohio, but the abortion stuff, all of it, including redefining pregnancy in biological terms new to Ohio, all of it stayed in the budget. John Kasich said yes to all of it. So all the male Republican leaders from his administration and from the legislature gathered around John Kasich yesterday and he shook all of the guys' hands and then this: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JOHN KASICH (R), OHIO: Well, I just have a few comments. Is that your son? Come on over here. What's your name? Come on. I won't bite you. Is he a little shy? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is Felix. KASICH: Hey, Felix. I've heard a lot about you. How old are you? Four. Guess how old I am? Can you give me the rock? You know that? Huh? Yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: He did call the kid over a little later again. See there on his lap, called him over again to help him sign the bill with all the ceremonial pens. The governor let the kid dot the "i" in Kasich. He let him dot the "i" on the new state budget with forced ultrasounds and requirements to shut down the clinics in Ohio and the redefinition of pregnancy. So that's what happened in Ohio. Ohio Democrats lost this fight in their state. But at least thanks to the Ohio capital blog's video, the whole country can see what it looks like when lawmakers add stuff into a bill that never gets debated. Tons of new laws dramatically affecting the lives of Ohio women specifically and then all the men gather around to sign it and congratulate each other. No debate, no explaining, dot the "I" and call it done. That's Ohio. That's governor ultrasound, John Kasich, and what he did to your rights over the weekend in Ohio. For the record, "the rock" is what old white guys from the midwest call what FOX News refers to as a "terrorist fist bump" when it's a black man and his wife. Er, right. It's actually almost cute to watch. Almost. That is, it's cute if you can get that cold, filthy, creepy-crawly, toxic-perspiration, maggots-in-your-soul, sick feeling to wash away. ("Hi, Felix. I may not be an adulterer, but I'm screwing your mother right now! And you're helping me screw her! Gimme the rock!") Oh! Yes! Ohio! Um ... right. You know, the sad thing is that after Ohio, the North Carolina shariabortion bill looks like a sweetheart deal. Funny how that works, eh? Jobs-jobs-jobs-jabortion. Abordget. ____________________ Notes: Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. July 1, 2013. Television. Video.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 3, 2013. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow-show/52370415#52370415 Transcript. NBCNews.com. July 3, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52374304/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/
Ah democracy.. Surely at some point this will be challenged in the courts? Forcing women, even rape victims to go through this is obscene.
Update: Shariabortion Update: Shariabortion The North Carolina shariabortion bill passed the state House of Representatives this morning; it is expected to pass the senate. Gov. Pat McRory (R) said during the campaign that no new abortion restrictions would receive his imprimatur, but it is yet unclear whether this is another mere campaign promise.
Mod Hat — Splinter note Mod Hat — Splinter note I have splintered the latest major digression into a thread of its own.
Only for a Woman Only for a Woman .... You know, we really shouldn't be surprised that it was a woman fighting for women's rights that leads our Texan neighbors to this kind of idiocy: Texas lawmakers spent months searching for ways to cut state expenses — and then racked up around $1.6 million in new costs during two special sessions. Now they are on the verge of facing a third special session, if Gov. Rick Perry keeps his word to call them back if they fail to pass a crucial transportation funding bill. It’ll take a political miracle for the bill to be approved today after the House failed to approve it Monday. “Most people [run for office] based on the assumption that this is what they will do for five months out of the year,” said state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth. “Now, the fact is that [lawmakers] have had to make a trip to Austin every week since December. “There is a high level of frustration among members,” he said. “It’s interfering with people’s lives, and now there’s a chance we could go back for a third.” That frustration may be spilling over into other areas, as some lawmakers are sounding off how much it costs the state each time they are called back to work. Each special session, which may last up to 30 days, costs around $800,000 once the 150 House members and 31 Senate members receive $150 a day for living expenses, as well as a small travel allowance. “I am upset at the cost,” said state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake. “I think we need to remember why we are having this extra special session. One state senator, in an effort to capture national attention, forced this special session. “I firmly believe that Sen. Wendy Davis should reimburse the taxpayers for the entire cost of the second special session,” he said. “I am sure that she has raised enough money at her Washington, D.C., fundraiser to cover the cost.” (Tinsley) Only for a woman could someone think up the idiotic notion that a legislator ought to reimburse the state for a successful filibuster. Then again, imagine that idea applied in Congress. Of course, here's the thing: • Governor Perry calls special session to settle a transportation bill. Republican legislators attempt to make the session about abortion; Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis successfully filibusters the legislation. • Legislature gathers for a second special session. Republicans ram through the anti-abortion legislation. • Legislature gathers for third special session, intending to finally settle the transportation bill that warranted the first special session. — Rep. Giovanni Capriglione thinks Wendy Davis should pay for the second special session, since the legislature that came together in the first special session to settle a transportation bill failed to pass the anti-abortion legislation it wanted, needed a second session to do so, and now everyone is tired and grouchy about having a third special session in order to finally deal with the transportation bill. Thinking of Congress, I would remind that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell once filibustered his own bill. I wonder if we might start charging Republicans for the human damage they cause in the U.S. and around the world by filibustering the Senate into paralysis. I mean, you know, I would think anything and everything from parliamentary immunity to basic human sense should be sufficient ot explain what the hell is wrong with Rep. Capriglione's suggestion, but, hey, you know ... she's a woman. So why the hell not? Here in Washington state, some people saw it coming, but it was too late to do anything about it, so many voted for the Democrats in two state senate races, hoping it wouldn't happen. And after the new session began, the pair rolled caucuses, ceding the state Senate to Republicans and paralyzing the government even worse than when Democrats had a supermajority and refused to use it. But here's the thing about that: Last year, the state was found to be in constitutional violation of its obligation to fund the schools properly. One effect of the newly-empowered Republican majority is that we now have to have a long, drawn out argument—one that is never settled either way—about whether it is worth the money to fund the schools. Owing to Rep. Capriglione's suggestion, perhaps we ought to bill Sens. Tom and Sheldon, and take the billion-plus dollars we're obliged to put toward additional educational funding out of their hides. Oh, right. State Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom wants to fine every legislator for special sessions. Which is an odd thing to suggest when one's whole purpose as Majority Leader is to keep the entire legislature in gridlock. Still, though, at least Tom's idea would be fair insofar as it applied to everyone. And the entire session. Rep. Capriglione of Texas? He just wants a special rule because Sen. Wendy Davis is a woman. Seriously. And don't even try to jump on that uncertainty bandwagon; the extraordinary suggestion here is that a man filibustering any special session diversion having anything to do with anything other than women's issues would earn such a suggestion. This isn't even look at the birdie. This is look at the bitch, and hate her for being the bitchy bitch bitch-bitch that she is. This is pure hatred. This is Texas pride. I mean, never mind that the whole thing could have been avoided by Texas legislative Republicans doing their damn jobs and settling the transportation bill in the first place. Really, how dare that woman make them spend a second special session ignoring their damn jobs in order to go after women! This is one of those things where you think Capriglione, whose nickname really ought to be "Prig" after this—Hey, Prig! Wha's shakin'?—must necessarily be playing some long-awaited performance art opportunity and ... well, that's just the thing. In Tom's case, he can always fall back to making a joke. That one, at least, is well established in the Evergreen State. And, you know, since their work year is already over? Never mind. It's just one of those things. Like the dude who fingerbanged a couple firearm-safety demonstrators on his way into a fundraiser headlined by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). Good one, dude. You just "shot" someone who lost her mother to gun violence, and whose father barely survived the hit on a third person, a friend whose neighbor held some sort of idiotic grudge. Oh, and also someone whose daughter survived two bullets to the head during the Virginia Tech massacre. Yeah, maybe next time he can wank at a couple of sex abuse survivors. You know, it just goes over wrong, and maybe there are just some times certain jokes are bound to fail. Capriglione cannot, it seems, hide behind humor. But if at some point his staff decides to try that tack, well, really, consider the context. This is the biggest fuck you he could give Texas women, the biggest flex he could give his manhood, without actually whipping it out. ____________________ Notes: Tinsley, Anna M. "Two special sessions likely cost Texans more than $1.6 million". Star-Telegram. July 30, 2013. Star-Telegram.com. August 3, 2013. http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/07/29/5039090/two-special-sessions-likely-cost.html Santos, Melissa. "Senate leader suggests fines to speed work". The News Tribune. July 9, 2013. TheNewsTribune.com. August 3, 2013. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/07/09/2671234/senate-leader-suggests-fines-to.html
(groan) This Sort of Episode Just ... It Just Isn't Helpful Jon Ralston explains: It often was difficult to discern who was speaking, but I did the best I could while transcribing. It began with a dissertation by Seamas, who had read a Wall Street Journal piece about the dropping rate of male employment. He mentioned that women "are getting more degrees these days . . . " And then he launched: "There is a cultural issue. I'm of the opinion that many of – and I need to be careful how I phrase this – there are a lot of social conditions, a lot of social changes, that have occurred in the last 50 years and they parallel women leaving their home occupations as mothers and homemakers and entering the workforce . . . . While I don't deny anybody's rights to pursue their dreams regardless of their sex . . . the reality is there is a special role that women take on, biologically, as the bearers of children and the nurturers of children. I don't know that we haven't created problems in society by ignoring that important role. ADD and various learning disabilities, hyperactive kids, kids building bombs in their garage." Those damn working women! They are leading to children who can't learn and then become terrorists! I expected someone sitting there, with an IQ in triple-digits and a conscience, to confront Seamas about this nonsense. But, quite the contrary. Barnhill, who is going to school at UNR, lamented the "moral decline" and how "the career seems to be more important" to women who "throw a child in day care." A few minutes later, Taber wondered: "Does it matter whether the mom is at home or the dad is at home?" Came the resounding chorus: "It does!" And this from a male voice I could not identify: "The mother is more nurturing. A man can't be nurturing." Rush added that "its not in (a man's) nature . . . When raising a child, their disciplinarian side kicks in, the testosterone kicks in." Well, I can tell you, while I was raising my daughter, I could barely contain my male rage as I let her have a car and was way too lax on the punishment side. Perhaps I need to check my levels? Another male voice, continuing to make me fear for the youth of America, intoned that he had just read about an FBI study that indicated 40 percent of domestic violence incidents were perpetrated by . . . women. "So it's not just the men against the women. Women are not always more nurturing." Yes, what are we as a society going to do about this plague of wives beating husbands? One of the men then talked about a scene that horrifies him on a regular basis when he is out to dinner and sees a young couple: "Invariably the young girl reaches for the check and pays the bill." Yeah. That's our Nevada. You know, maybe the thing is that if I had stopped to think about it before, yeah, it would have been scary to suggest that Sharron Angle was not the lowest intelletual valence of Brothel Silver State conservatives .... Right. I don't even know how to formulate that. I mean, obviously there are complete morons in every state, but that threshold where they not only are running for office but have the GOP's support? The Republican Party seems captured by its extremist wing; certes there are extremists in all colors of the politcal spectrum, but this is unusual—the leftist radicals never achieved this kind of power in the sixties. Why is this sort of idiocy even respectable in our political discourse? ____________________ Notes: Ralston, Jon. "The Mad Men of the northern GOP". Ralston Reports. October 31, 2013. RalstonReports.com.. November 4, 2013. http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/mad-men-northern-gop
Human beings are a sexually dimorphic species. As such, there has been a certain division of labor among the sexes for about as long as human beings have existed. In recent decades, modern technology and societal change has allowed women to expand their opportunities to an extent never seen before. The idea that such a profound change in human behavior would have no down side whatsoever seems quite implausible. So I have to ask why you believe that even raising the issue should be considered outside the bounds of polite political discourse?
Of course you do .... And apparently I have to ask if you're capable of telling the difference between any mention of a subject and responsible discussion thereof?
There is a TV show here called the Gruen Transfer which is all about advertising and how its used and they did a show a couple of weeks ago on how marriage equality is marketed both by those who support it and those who oppose it and one ad from the US stood out. Its a young child sitting on the ground crying and someone asks "where's your mummy?" and the child looks up and there are 2 men behind her. The implication being men can't comfort a child. It was the single most insulting ad I have ever seen, it went far beyond insulting just same sex marriage and insulted every man that they can't care for a child
Indeed. My post was primarily aimed at this statement (sort of the OP): He is noting a correlation between less adherence to traditional sex roles and certain negative outcomes and wondering if there might be a causal relationship. I see nothing wrong with that. Now if you're referring to the various unattributed statements made by members of the peanut gallery, that's a different matter. What do you expect from a bunch of yahoos?
Fallacy: ¿Proposition From Ignorance? If it's such a concern, why doesn't he get the real data? The proposition starts from a position of ignorance—no, literally and declaratively: I don't know that we haven't created problems .... —and then goes on to speculate a link between career women and ADD, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, and terrorism. I can note a correlation between a tornado striking and thousands of people having committed sodomy in the previous twenty-four hours, but that doesn't prove anything. Seriously, I'm more inclined to believe a link between hormone doping in food animals and learning disabilities than the idea that a mother wants a career. I'll tell you this much: That a mother has a college degree and career ambitions has no connection of any sort whatsoever to chromosomal learning disabilities such as Down's Syndrome, methylation, or inversion. Even so, in accounting for the sorts of behavioral learning disorders people used to think you could spank out of children, the underlying proposition here is that it is a woman's fault according to her "role" in society. As the Nevada Republican guests noted, and Asguard noted specifically, that logic seems to be in part dependent on the idea that men cannot and should not raise children. By the time we get to a woman paying the check at a restaurant, you cannot possibly suggest with a straight face that this is any sort of responsible discussion of the issues. The best I can say of your outlook is that, apparently, it is once again the duty of more liberal-minded people to rescue the hapless conservatives from themselves. I mean, after all, if it's not fair to call this sort of ignorant, irresponsible rhetoric by its name, and we must pretend instead that some more functional thesis exists as a basis for discussion, and if the political conservatives are to maintain their respectability without even bothering to find that better basis, then it is left to everyone else to rescue the discourse from the guttermuck. No, really, maybe overprescription of ADD drugs was a bad idea? Nah, couldn't possibly be, right? It's just the fault of those damn working mothers. If they're going to work, it ought to be low-wage, low-skill labor because we kicked them off welfare instead of a responsibly-planned and educated adulthood. Seriously, starting with blaming women who have good educations and careers for terrorism is not respectable discourse. It is not intelligent discourse. It is not useful discourse. Now, you're certainly welcome, if so inclined, to go back and prepare a full transcript and take issue with Ralston's presentation. Meanwhile, where, exactly, is the respectability in these propositions: • That women with educations and careers are to blame for domestic terrorism. • That a man cannot be a nurturing parent, indeed is by nature incapable of such behavior. • The real scourge of domestic violence is women beating their helpless husbands. • That it is somehow a bad sign that a woman would rather pay the check on a date. You're on, good sir. And, yes, you're staking your reputation on your defense of this kind of misogyny as being respectable.
Gee, all I can add to your response is men that think this way are resentful and selfish, for they do not want to participate in any way with nurturing or what they deem are womanly duties. Maybe in a few more generations Eve will be forgotten and women will not be blamed for the failures of society.
What Women are Worth: North Dakota Edition The Role of Woman in North Dakota Flyover country, middle America, whatever. Perhaps it is most instructive, then, for our international neighbors to simply say: This is the picture. "Let me explain it this way, Joel, and you might feel the same way. When I find out my wife's been shopping at a home improvement store, I get nervous. I wonder what ideas are going on in her pretty little head and 'What's it going to cost me?'" —State Sen. Dwight Cook (R-ND) It is not so much that there exist parts of the country where this is acceptable, or whatever. Rather, Sen. Cook lives and works in a place where those sorts of attitudes about women are expected. Even the women get to the point that they would rather just be pretty little things baking pies for the men. Meanwhile, out here on the douchy, liberal coast, I would note that incomplete things got finished, and broken things repaired, in my mother's house, after my father moved out. Closet doors. That's a family joke. Never again will my mother wait twelve years for closet doors that will never be installed. So as long as we're playing that way, maybe Sen. Cook should stop worrying about what his wife is doing at the home improvement store and start maintaining and improving his home like a real man. And maybe we ought not wonder why there is a shortage of marrying women in North Dakota? ____________________ Notes: Goddard, Tegan. "Bonus Quote of the Day". Political Wire. December 6, 2013. PoliticalWire.com. December 6, 2013. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/12/06/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html See Also: Eligon, John. "An Oil Town Where Men Are Many, and Women Are Hounded". The New York Times. January 15, 2013. NYTimes.com. December 6, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/us/16women.html
Republicans: The Party of Rape Between Everybody It seems like only yesterday that Republicans were complaining about the PPACA—"Obamacare"—getting in between a patient and doctor. Okay, well, if we scour all the commentary and letters to the editor, yeah it might actually have been just yesterday. Or last week. Or, really, any point over the last four years, since the GOP turned against its own health reform plan. Meanwhile, conservatives continue to insert themselves between, well, pretty much everybody. Doctor and patient, insurance company and patient, insurance and doctor. After all, last week Michigan Republicans, answering a whole four percent of the population, circumvented the governor's veto and Democratic demands for general human decency in order to become the ninth state in the Union to forbid the private sector from covering abortion in standard health insurance plans. And while the Detroit Free Press editorial board reminds of a very specific hypocrisy within Michigan itself about the new law, we can also see quite clearly yet another hypocrisy in the conservative gnashing and wailing about the PPACA. And, of course, Republicans know this, which is why they are trying to lie their way through the controversy. Kathleen Gray reported earlier this week that Mt. Pleasant Republican state Rep. Kevin Cotter argued that the signatures, coming from four percent of the state, also came from every county, and that the legislature represents everyone in Michigan. It is something of a distraction, of course, which looks past the fact that the legislature just responded to four percent of the electorate in a manner that did not require the governor's signature. True, it may be a process allowable under the constitution, but if Cotter really believes he is doing the genuinely right thing, why the weird demographic tack? The same thing with Rep. Nancy Jenkins, a Republican from Dover Township. "I don't think think elective abortion should be part of insurance," she explained. One might wonder, then, if this law doesn't go far enough for her. "This doesn't affect access to abortion," she continued. "It will still be legal when this law takes effect." Yes, abortion will still be legal, but it once again becomes a luxury of affluence. "Who should be required to pay? Not Michigan taxpayers." That is perhaps the most revealing of sleights; the law pertains to the private sector. The result, as Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic leader in the Michigan Senate, explained, is the need for rape insurance: For those you who want to act aghast that I'd use a term like "rape insurance" to describe the proposal here in front of us, you should be even more offended that it's an absolutely accurate description of what this proposal requires. This tells women that were raped and became pregnant that they should have bought special insurance for it. By moving forward on this initiative, Senate Republicans want to essentially require Michigan women to plan ahead and financially invest in healthcare coverage for potentially having their bodies violated and assaulted. Even worse, it would force parents to have similar and unthinkably terrible discussions about planning the same for their daughters. Having health insurance is not enough peace of mind for Michigan women. In order to achieve that peace of mind, they must expect—place a financial wager—that they will be raped. Meanwhile, the citizen-initiated ballot process requires fewer signatures than the anti-abortion forces got— Pro-choice activists are already considering that type of ballot drive, according to the Associated Press. Democrats in the legislature are vowing to keep the pressure on this issue well into 2014. If they're successful, the insurance restriction will come up for a popular vote around the same time as next November's legislative elections. In order to advance a referendum, Michigan state law requires activists to collect 161,305 signatures within 90 days of the legislature's adjournment. That's considerably fewer signatures than the anti-choice community needed to get this issue up for a vote. They were required to collect 258,088, a threshold which they ended up exceeding. Women's health groups say there's plenty of evidence to suggest voters will reject the measure if it's subject to a popular vote. According to Michigan's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), some of the lawmakers who voted for the bill represent districts where 60 to 70 percent of constituents are opposed to it. "They didn't see this as an abortion issue," ACLU lobbyist Shelli Weisberg explained to the AP. "They saw it as a coverage issue, as a privacy issue, as an issue that deals with commerce and not legislation. They didn't want the Legislature trying to interfere with medical decisions." (Ressler) —and with 60-70% of voters consistently polling against the law, we can expect it will be undone at the ballot box. Thus, it would seem Michigan Republicans have simply undertaken an exercise to remind women that they are, in conservative eyes, nothing more than baby factories and sex toys that ought to bet on being raped in their lifetime. Welcome to Middle America. Welcome to Michigan. Welcome to the right wing. This is what Republicans call "family values": If you're a woman, you'd better damn well wager that you will be raped before this is all over. Republicans have managed to finally escape their reputation as the Party of No. Republicans are now the Party of Rape. Well, okay, we already knew that. But apparently conservatives are afraid there is still room to argue about it, so they're trying to indelibly and undeniably tattoo the GOP as the nation's pro-rape lobby. This is something you can't un-see. ____________________ Notes: Gray, Kathleen. "Michigan Legislature OKs initiative to require insurance rider for abortion coverage". Detroit Free Press. November 12, 2013. Freep.com. December 16, 2013. http://www.freep.com/article/20131211/NEWS06/312110143/Michigan-abortion-rider-insurance Editorial Board. "Michigan ruled by the hypocritical minority". Detroit Free Press. November 12, 2013. Freep.com. December 16, 2013. http://www.freep.com/article/201312...fe-Republican-Michigan-Legislature-initiative Conaway, Laura. "In Michigan, the meaning of 'rape insurance'". MSNBC. December 12, 2013. MSNBC.com. December 16, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/michigan-the-meaning-rape-insurance Culp-Ressler, Tara. "Pro-Choice Activists Could Still Repeal Michigan's New 'Rape Insurance' Law". ThinkProgress. December 16, 2013. ThinkProgress.com. December 16, 2013. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/16/3067861/pro-choice-activists-michigan-referendum/
I don't know if conservative war on abortion counts a misogyny, I think many of them simply believe a fetus's life has has more value then the mother's right to choose to carry said fetus to term. The social implication of making abortion illegal are irrelevant to them as the lives of the unborn mean more then women's freedoms... yeah that does sound kind of misogynist.
The extremists in the anti-abortion movement--the Catholics--actually believe that a fetus's life has more value than the mother's life. They will not perform an abortion even if, without it, the mother is guaranteed to die. They will not even perform it if the fetus itself will also die. They value those few extra minutes of keeping the fetus alive while its mother dies, over the mother's entire lifetime. Now that is misogyny!
Can you cite why they believe this? It can't simply be because they hate women, they got to have some kind of convolute rational like the fetus is without sin and the mother being an adult is with sin or some BS like that... I just think it necessary to try to understand their horrific position and not just assume they believe so out of unadulterated hate for all the own a vagina.
