Misogyny and the Conservative Tradition

[wellwisher]

Pregnancy is not a mystery of nature, but occurs via cause and effect, which makes it predictable to any rational person. The question one might ask is, why the need for so many abortions if pregnancy is based on cause and effect and the simple ability to reason and plan could pre-empt much of the need? There is a breakdown in claims of smart with data that suggests otherwise.

As an analogy, if someone is allergic to peanut butter, and they eat it, they will have a bad reaction than can be fatal at times. This cause and effect is learned quickly even by small children. If we use the mentality of abortion, we would be arguing that people allergic to peanut butter don't have to be reasonable, but can eat peanut butter, get sick, and call 911 anytime they want, because it is there right to eat peanut butter. This irrationality does not add up to smart, but more like an inability to reason. Maybe the need is due to irrationality, since if taken away it would be a disaster (prevents looking as dumb).

Some women claim being smart, while the action of abortion, does not appear to reflect this. Another explanation is maybe some women use sex, like a tool, for fun, profit, and merchandise. If this was true, they would know the cause and effect go pregnancy, but they will also factor in mercenary parameters. Since abortion is legal, the total equation may sometimes works out in the favor of abortion with all this based on extended reasons.

Another example of the extended reasoning is a women may want to use pregnancy to trap a male. Many males will marry for the baby. She knows the cause and effect of pregnancy and uses this as a tool. If the male escapes, she may need an abortion to reset the bait.

 

[Tiassa]

Horndogs, Get Your Horndogs ... What Kind of Women Like Their Horndogs?

Another example of the extended reasoning is a women may want to use pregnancy to trap a male. Many males will marry for the baby. She knows the cause and effect of pregnancy and uses this as a tool. If the male escapes, she may need an abortion to reset the bait.

So it's women's fault in general that some guy somewhere is a complete moron?

 

[quinnsong]

Another example of the extended reasoning is a women may want to use pregnancy to trap a male. Many males will marry for the baby. She knows the cause and effect of pregnancy and uses this as a tool. If the male escapes, she may need an abortion to reset the bait.

Tiassa
Horndogs, Get Your Horndogs ... What Kind of Women Like Their Horndogs?




One of the many briefings our soldiers stationed in South Korea get is be wary of women (especially from the Philippines) who will and do trap soldiers into marriage or at least financial responsibility while serving there. Do those horndogs (morons) listen? Some do, some don't, who cares, who's next! Better question to me though is, "Why are all those Filipino women there in the first place? Care to guess at that one, wellwisher?

 

[billvon]

As an analogy, if someone is allergic to peanut butter, and they eat it, they will have a bad reaction than can be fatal at times. This cause and effect is learned quickly even by small children. If we use the mentality of abortion, we would be arguing that people allergic to peanut butter don't have to be reasonable, but can eat peanut butter, get sick, and call 911 anytime they want, because it is there right to eat peanut butter.

No.

People who are allergic to peanut butter should avoid eating it. Sometimes it doesn't work - they eat something that should not have any peanut butter in it, but does. Or they ground the wheat in the same mill that they ground peanuts in. Or someone tells them "this is fine, it doesn't have any peanut butter in it." In that case they may need to call 9/11 to back up their prevention.

People who do not want to get pregnant use birth control to avoid getting pregnant. Sometimes it doesn't work - the birth control fails, or someone lies to them about their use of it, or they screw it up. In that case they may need to use something else (abortion) to back up their prevention.

Would you prefer people who have allergic reactions to peanut butter to die because you think they were stupid?

 

[Tiassa]

Not a Joke

Um ... er ... ah ... huh?

"The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap."

―Phyllis Schlafly​

Yes, she really wrote that.

Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all ....

.... The pay gap between men and women is not all bad because it helps to promote and sustain marriages. Since husband and wife generally pool their incomes into a single economic unit, what really matters is the combined family income, not the pay gap between them.​

And here's the clincher:

In two segments of our population, the pay gap has virtually ceased to exist. In the African-American community and in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 32), women earn about the same as men, if not more.

It just so happens that those are the two segments of our population in which the rate of marriage has fallen the most. Fifty years ago, about 80 percent of Americans were married by age 30; today, less than 50 percent are.

Just a coincidence? I think not. The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.​

All I can manage at this point is to shrug and say: Yes, she really said that.

I suppose we might pause to wonder at the dialectics of neuroses contributing to the appearance of a toxic irony; after all, conservatives put a woman's face on it and the argument astoundingly and innovatively stupid. Perhaps it's a self-fulfilling prophecy among phallocentric religious conservatives. I mean, it's one of those Poe's Law sorts of things, except we know Phyllis Schlafly is not intended as a satire on idiots drowning in uneducated religion.

I mean, really, come on. She's just making the same argument we heard from Michael Reagan some years ago; the new twist is the suggestion that we ought to increase workplace sex discrimination.

But, wow, let's see how this one goes over among our conservative neighbors.
____________________

Notes:

Schlafly, Phyllis. "Facts and Fallacies About Paycheck Fairness". The Christian Post. April 15, 2014. ChristianPost.com. April 16, 2014. http://www.christianpost.com/news/facts-and-fallacies-about-paycheck-fairness-117959/

 

[The Marquis]

Alright, I'll bite.

Which of those statements are you actually refuting, Tiassa?

Seems you've written an awful lot with the single purpose of refuting only the one line you've quoted at the very beginning.
I'm not really certain which points you take issue with, regarding the rest. Unless... all of them?

 

[Tiassa]

And So Will I

Alright, I'll bite.

I would tell you to stick to the diet, but I'm about to nibble on some bait, too:

What, exactly, are you on about, sir?​

 

[quinnsong]

Oh this should be delightful!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

Unfortunately, that's basically true in the Afro-American community. In the inner cities, more women are employed than men. The reason, of course, is the racially disparate enforcement of our drug laws. The rate of drug use in the Afro- and Euro-American communities is virtually identical, yet Afro-American men are twice as likely to be arrested for it, four times as likely to be prosecuted, and eight times as likely to be in prison.

When they get out, they have a (duh!) prison record, making it impossible to find a job with a reasonable salary, and almost impossible to find a job at all. Which is why out of desperation many take "jobs" as drug dealers, which require no background check. There is so much competition in this business that the average hourly net income of a drug dealer has fallen from $30 to $8 in the last three decades--unadjusted for inflation!

Fold in the fact that many of these single moms are on public assistance, which they will lose if they allow a convicted felon to live in their home, and you've got a recipe for a community whose stereotypical family is an overworked, underpaid single mother with a houseful of children who have no father-figure.

 

[quinnsong]

Unfortunately, that's basically true in the Afro-American community. In the inner cities, more women are employed than men. The reason, of course, is the racially disparate enforcement of our drug laws. The rate of drug use in the Afro- and Euro-American communities is virtually identical, yet Afro-American men are twice as likely to be arrested for it, four times as likely to be prosecuted, and eight times as likely to be in prison.

When they get out, they have a (duh!) prison record, making it impossible to find a job with a reasonable salary, and almost impossible to find a job at all. Which is why out of desperation many take "jobs" as drug dealers, which require no background check. There is so much competition in this business that the average hourly net income of a drug dealer has fallen from $30 to $8 in the last three decades--unadjusted for inflation!

Fold in the fact that many of these single moms are on public assistance, which they will lose if they allow a convicted felon to live in their home, and you've got a recipe for a community whose stereotypical family is an overworked, underpaid single mother with a houseful of children who have no father-figure.

Why it was ever called the War on Drugs is laughable, the better name is How to Destroy an African American Community in less than a Decade?

 

[The Marquis]

I would tell you to stick to the diet, but I'm about to nibble on some bait, too:

What, exactly, are you on about, sir?​

Gee, I'm not sure now. I had no idea "Which of those statements are you actually refuting, Tiassa?" was so difficult to interpret. Should I rephrase the question?

And of course you'd normally tell me to stick to the diet. Tiassa speak for shut up and don't interrupt, isn't it?

 

[The Marquis]

Oh this should be delightful!

Oh, I doubt it. I spend far too much time being drunk and silly to actually pose any serious chaellenge to someone caring so much for his work.

 

[Tiassa]

Wizened Prude

Gee, I'm not sure now. I had no idea "Which of those statements are you actually refuting, Tiassa?" was so difficult to interpret. Should I rephrase the question?

Phyllis Schlafly: Corset. I mean, Corset. Sorry. I guess it's only a slight resemblance.​

Refuting Ms. Schlafly's opinion is of considerably less importance than the simple fact that it exists. She is welcome to believe as she does, and if in doing so she happens to reinforce my point—

The conservative tradition has long been misogynistic; indeed, one might reasonably assert that it has always been so. And while it might upset some conservatives to be associated with misogyny, there comes a point where they have to make a stand, and tell their hateful fellows to shut the hell up and get real. Perhaps their consciences really do argue that women are inferior, but these are the United States, where we have a rule called Equal Protection. Thus, conservatives need to simply get over it, and admit that women are people, and people are equal under the law. Christians who own businesses and scream about the oppression of having to offer women a decent health insurance plan need to stop and consider whether or not they require their employees to work weekends. One cannot logically pick and choose: Oh, sure, it violates one's conscience to not be able to strike certain aspects of a health insurance plan, but how many of them call their employees to work on the Sabbath? It is telling that treating women decently is what conservatives object to. They might not like being called misogynists, but they really should, then, reconsider their support of misogynistic policy. And they need to tell those role models like Pat Robertson, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Bryan Fischer, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Mourdock, Tom Smith, Todd Akin, Roger Rivard, and countless others to figure out what century they live in.​

—about misogyny in the conservative tradition, that is enough. She can't live forever; few take her seriously anymore, which would be what it is, except those few are enough, and, yes, they are conservatives.

I call it "lipsticking", which isn't a very nice word. But putting lipstick on piggy chauvinism doesn't really help the cause. It is no more attractive a policy outlook coming from a wizened prude than, you know, some slob who thinks we can repair the nation by kicking women back to the kitchen. Supremacism is supremacism.

It's one thing for conservatives to argue against the idea that discrimination is a factor in the pay gap, but another entirely to suggest the better thing to do is increase that disparity. Especially, you know, when doing so would specifically accommodate a sex-discriminatory polcy outlook.

A caption: "Well, Stocking, at least we know what God thinks of Phyllis."​

 

[billvon]

Refuting Ms. Schlafly's opinion is of considerably less importance than the simple fact that it exists.

So you don't take issue with anything she says specifically, you just take issue that she _has_ an opinion?

Bravo sir. You've become what you regularly attack.

 

[quinnsong]

So you don't take issue with anything she says specifically, you just take issue that she _has_ an opinion?

Bravo sir. You've become what you regularly attack.

I am a woman and I find that this opinion still exists more than a little disgusting, too. Hey, but I am glad that dumb asses voice their opinion about equal pay, homosexuality, race, etc.. (you know kinda like shining a light on a dark and dirty room so you know just how much pesticide you'll need to get rid of the bug problem).She sounds like my mother, who thinks that women should not be in positions of leadership, to which I replied," Mom if they ran a house like you did and do then you would have a point."

 

[joepistole]

No.

People who are allergic to peanut butter should avoid eating it. Sometimes it doesn't work - they eat something that should not have any peanut butter in it, but does. Or they ground the wheat in the same mill that they ground peanuts in. Or someone tells them "this is fine, it doesn't have any peanut butter in it." In that case they may need to call 9/11 to back up their prevention.

People who do not want to get pregnant use birth control to avoid getting pregnant. Sometimes it doesn't work - the birth control fails, or someone lies to them about their use of it, or they screw it up. In that case they may need to use something else (abortion) to back up their prevention.

Would you prefer people who have allergic reactions to peanut butter to die because you think they were stupid?

I remember a case in which a young college boy was brought into an emergency room in cardiac arrest accompanied by his girlfriend. After several minutes they managed to revive the boy and they let his girlfriend into see him at which time he suffered another anaphylactic reaction and went into arrest again. Come to find out, his girlfriend had eaten a peanut butter and jelly sandwich hours before. She even brushed her teeth afterwards. And every time she kissed her beau, he went into anaphylactic shock. There was still enough peanut residue in her mouth to kill her young boyfriend.

Everyone knew the lad was allergic to peanuts, including his girlfriend. However his girlfriend didn't know that brushing her teeth wasn't enough and the deadly consequences her indulgence could have had on her beau. Indeed, accidents do happen.

 

[Tiassa]

Brief Note

Brief Note[sup]†[/sup]

So you don't take issue with anything she says specifically, you just take issue that she _has_ an opinion?

Bravo sir. You've become what you regularly attack.

I must be missing something, since this makes no sense to me outside the context of someone being deliberately thick in order to find a reason to complain.

(1) It's her opinion. One can certainly pick evidentiary bones with, say, the first half of her op-ed piece for The Christian Post insofar as it suffers the usual superficial decontextualization required for the standard political argument that there isn't a pay gap, and even if there is sex has nothing to do with it. But here's the tricky part: The twist she adds, compared to the usual talking points, is a call to increase the pay gap and make it specifically a matter of sex discrimination.

(2) Proposition: I find this outlook appalling, both abstractly (morally) and functionally (no beneficial application).

(3) The question of refuting Ms. Schlafly's opinion?

"Which of those statements are you actually refuting, Tiassa?"​

Come on—what does that even mean?

(4) No, really, what does that even mean? It's a rhetorical inquiry devoid of any functional reading comprehension. After all—

I suppose we might pause to wonder at the dialectics of neuroses contributing to the appearance of a toxic irony; after all, conservatives put a woman's face on it and the argument astoundingly and innovatively stupid. Perhaps it's a self-fulfilling prophecy among phallocentric religious conservatives. I mean, it's one of those Poe's Law sorts of things, except we know Phyllis Schlafly is not intended as a satire on idiots drowning in uneducated religion.

I mean, really, come on. She's just making the same argument we heard from Michael Reagan some years ago; the new twist is the suggestion that we ought to increase workplace sex discrimination.

But, wow, let's see how this one goes over among our conservative neighbors.​

—we might wonder at what is unclear about my opinion of Ms. Schlafly's opinion, especially since we have no real context to go on that might give us a clue as to the meaning of such statements. To wit, the idea that one might take a statement like, "let's see how this one goes over among our conservative neighbors", in the context of the thread title, "Misogyny and the Conservative Tradition", and reasonably conclude that the context of the words pertains to the idea of a prominent conservative icon offering an even more misogynistic twist on the usual misogyny of American conservative politics, is, of course, an extraordinary proposition; we have absolutely no justification for any assertion of a reasonable expectation that intelligent people can put together the two and two of specific words and the general contexts in which those words are presented. I mean, really, basic reading comprehension? Who does that, anymore?​

____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] Aside for Sorcerer: See what happens? No, really, you couldn't see this one coming? The problem with your exacting standards is that they discount, well, other people, which in your case isn't especially surprising, at least, given the nature of your argument in our disagreement. And, well, that is if we are setting aside the fact that you perceive no obligation on your own part to fulfill what you demand of others; again, that's not surprising given the nature of your argument in that particular discussion.

 

[billvon]

And every time she kissed her beau, he went into anaphylactic shock. There was still enough peanut residue in her mouth to kill her young boyfriend. Everyone knew the lad was allergic to peanuts, including his girlfriend. However his girlfriend didn't know that brushing her teeth wasn't enough and the deadly consequences her indulgence could have had on her beau.

Agreed. Per Wellwisher's definition, that person would be deemed as an unreasonable idiot, unable to understand what even small children understand - and his death is therefore fitting. Of course, in the real world, accidents do happen.

 

[joepistole]

I wonder who stands up for mens' rights nowadays and what is the term for "hatred against men"? I guess it is not popular to discuss hate against men, it just does not sell. Meanwhile flying articles like this always do well.

What makes you think the rights of males are being infringed?

 

[The Marquis]

Ummm, Tiassa will you stop trying to piss me off! When I read these posts I find myself mumbling the most obscene things under my breath.

The word you're looking for is "obfuscation".

It's a really lovely word.
It's Tiassa.