The War on Women?
Patrick Laverty
We hear all about this "War on Women" that the Democrats like to claim that the Republicans are waging. First, I think these "wars" are silly. It cheapens what the word means. Comparing policy to dropping bombs on a people certainly cheapens the term.
But hey, while we're at it, can we ask why the Democrats are waging their own "War on Women" or more specifically, mothers?
Feminist activist Gloria Steinem and several chapters of the National Organization for Women (NOW) have condemned the Democratic National Committee for “discrimination against mothers with young children” during the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
How exactly is that happening? What is Steinem talking about?
"The DNC requires children and babies to have a credential to enter the Convention, and then denies these credential requests from moms. The DNC credentialing process is being used as a tool to prevent mothers from participating at the Convention and is nothing short of discriminatory," said Lindsey Horvath, president of the Hollywood NOW.
Why are Rhode Island's national Democrats like David Cicilline, James Langevin and Sheldon Whitehouse not stepping up and making a big deal about this? Why aren't they fighting for mothers? Do they not care? Will they attend the convention if delegates who are mothers are not able to participate?
So to recap here, the whole "war" talk is silly, but what the Democrats appear to be doing with their convention is embarrassing and insulting.
to whom it may concern regarding "the war on women":
as the webmaster of www.ladiessavetheday.com, i am hearing everyone talking about "the war on women" and i ask myself what women could be complaining about. are they mad at God for designing females to lay an egg if a man hasn't had his way with them sexually? are they mad at God for designing femininity to be used as a tool by men? are they mad that their milk jugs are a tool to be used by babies?
are they complaining about being regarded as and known as members of the lesser gender? i would assume so, with all of this "a woman can do anything a man can do" nonsense. they obviously cannot accept that they are of the lesser gender, being that "Strongwoman" is the new buzz-word (while men have been reduced to being known as "guys," even as the Strongwoman isn't half as strong as a man who can pick her up and throw her before he pulls a george huguely and kills her without help from a weapon other than his own masculine ability).
the truth is that Strongwoman doesn't have a body built for strength, she doesn't have testosterone to give her strength. case-in-point: for a sense of gender-equality, she relies on gender-based sports teams and gender-based military requirements because she can only triumph alongside of men (and never over men). she is meant to be picked on because the Strongwoman is largely disabled.
a woman is as defined by her womb as the word "woman" is a product of "womb" and "man". case-in-point: Strongwoman bleeds for a man. case-in-point: while laying an egg from her womb every month, Strongwoman bleeds actual blood because a man hasn't fertilized the egg. despite the tell-tale vagina, though, Strongwoman bleeds to be manly mostly every day of the month. when she's laying an egg, she just accepts it and she doesn't take any hints about gender-roles - rather, she sticks to her reality-defying mantra: "a woman can do anything a man can do".
as all wombn bleed for men, all wombn are of the lesser gender. i cannot understand why society embraces physical competitions being based on gender (olympic swimming, scholastic basketball) while they buy into the "anything a man can do" mantra. maybe i can understand basketball being gender-based, as men are members of the taller gender, but i wonder why society separates the men from the girls in every other sporting event/physical competition.
if gender-based physical competitions and the size of the barbells at "curves fitness" aren't a constant reminder of the reality of gender-inequality, if neither the presence of females' milk-jugs or the reality of females laying an egg every month isn't a constant reminder of gender-roles, then i'm sure that wombn are blind and therefore i have no problem with "handicapped parking" doubling as "parking for pregnant women".
u2 said "love is blindness," but i maintain that "womanhood is blindness".
dylan terreri, i
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
is it a "war on women" or is she a "moron woman"
Patrick, stop pretending you don't know this is about abortion and contraceptive rights. We might quibble over the semantics of using the word "war," but the stakes for women's rights are serious. BTW, Dylan Terreri's comment speaks volumes about the rights views--scary. Would you quibble with that?
The "war on women" rhetoric is insulting from a number of perspectives. The direct implication is that any woman who is pro-life, against public funding of contraceptives, or adopts any view out of line with the largely subjective metrics of the raging, sign-carrying, in-your-face, "silent holocaust"-rhetoric gang, is too stupid to know what's best for her or, absurdly, that she hates herself. It precludes any opportunity for meaningful discussion about these topics. It's largely the same people who call Clarence Thomas "Uncle Tom" for being conservative and engage in all sorts of despicable bigotry rationalized under the banner of progressivism.
"Legitimate Rape"
Does anyone really have to say anything else?
Yes. What are you trying to say? That one man's ignorance is attributable to all men? Is this the new original sin?
Contraceptive rights? Perhaps I'm missing something--but last I looked these items are sold in about every drugstore in the U.S. Or do you mean your "right" to have others pay for your contraception? Because I really wish that someone responsible would pay for the stuff I want too--but then I grew up and realized if I wanted something, I got a job and earned it.
Hyperbole and repeating inane talking points isn't a replacement for thinking...
Candace, how is not letting mothers bring their kids on the DNC floor about abortion rights? I wrote about the DNC. Do you agree with their stance on kids on the floor?
Patrick, you are trying to equate mothers bringing kids into the DNC with much more serious issues such as abortion and contraception. Your agreement goes like this: if feminists are saying the Democrats don't care about mothers, it is akin to these same people saying Republicans are waging a war on women. In other words, feminists are saying both parties are in some way against women, so since one argument is a specific, minor, and isolated case, the other is as well, a classic bait and switch. BTW, most progressive Democrats, feminists too, you'll be glad to know, are upset that the DNC is holding its convention in a right to work state. This doesn't mean these Democrats think the party is anti-labor.
"upset that the DNC is holding its convention in a right to work state"
Ah yes, the heinous crime of allowing workers to choose whether to join a union or not. This must be stamped out at once and those workers must be forced to join and pay thousands of dollars to a union against their will so the money can be funneled to candidates they don't support. That is the moral, progressive thing to do.
Candace, why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth (or post). I didn't say anything about propaganda or abortion or reproduction rights. I simply asked why Rhode Island's national Democrats are not standing up for the delegate mothers and demanding that they be allowed to bring their children on to the floor. I'm going to guess that you agree with me that it was a poor choice by the DNC organizers as you keep trying to change the conversation into a different direction. I'm simply asking a question, so why are you trying to claim that I'm saying something else?
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
to whom it may concern regarding "the war on women":
as the webmaster of www.ladiessavetheday.com, i am hearing everyone talking about "the war on women" and i ask myself what women could be complaining about. are they mad at God for designing females to lay an egg if a man hasn't had his way with them sexually? are they mad at God for designing femininity to be used as a tool by men? are they mad that their milk jugs are a tool to be used by babies?
are they complaining about being regarded as and known as members of the lesser gender? i would assume so, with all of this "a woman can do anything a man can do" nonsense. they obviously cannot accept that they are of the lesser gender, being that "Strongwoman" is the new buzz-word (while men have been reduced to being known as "guys," even as the Strongwoman isn't half as strong as a man who can pick her up and throw her before he pulls a george huguely and kills her without help from a weapon other than his own masculine ability).
the truth is that Strongwoman doesn't have a body built for strength, she doesn't have testosterone to give her strength. case-in-point: for a sense of gender-equality, she relies on gender-based sports teams and gender-based military requirements because she can only triumph alongside of men (and never over men). she is meant to be picked on because the Strongwoman is largely disabled.
a woman is as defined by her womb as the word "woman" is a product of "womb" and "man". case-in-point: Strongwoman bleeds for a man. case-in-point: while laying an egg from her womb every month, Strongwoman bleeds actual blood because a man hasn't fertilized the egg. despite the tell-tale vagina, though, Strongwoman bleeds to be manly mostly every day of the month. when she's laying an egg, she just accepts it and she doesn't take any hints about gender-roles - rather, she sticks to her reality-defying mantra: "a woman can do anything a man can do".
as all wombn bleed for men, all wombn are of the lesser gender. i cannot understand why society embraces physical competitions being based on gender (olympic swimming, scholastic basketball) while they buy into the "anything a man can do" mantra. maybe i can understand basketball being gender-based, as men are members of the taller gender, but i wonder why society separates the men from the girls in every other sporting event/physical competition.
if gender-based physical competitions and the size of the barbells at "curves fitness" aren't a constant reminder of the reality of gender-inequality, if neither the presence of females' milk-jugs or the reality of females laying an egg every month isn't a constant reminder of gender-roles, then i'm sure that wombn are blind and therefore i have no problem with "handicapped parking" doubling as "parking for pregnant women".
u2 said "love is blindness," but i maintain that "womanhood is blindness".
dylan terreri, i
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
is it a "war on women" or is she a "moron woman"
Posted by: dylan terreri, i at August 25, 2012 8:45 AMPatrick, stop pretending you don't know this is about abortion and contraceptive rights. We might quibble over the semantics of using the word "war," but the stakes for women's rights are serious. BTW, Dylan Terreri's comment speaks volumes about the rights views--scary. Would you quibble with that?
Posted by: Candace McCall at August 25, 2012 9:25 AMThe "war on women" rhetoric is insulting from a number of perspectives. The direct implication is that any woman who is pro-life, against public funding of contraceptives, or adopts any view out of line with the largely subjective metrics of the raging, sign-carrying, in-your-face, "silent holocaust"-rhetoric gang, is too stupid to know what's best for her or, absurdly, that she hates herself. It precludes any opportunity for meaningful discussion about these topics. It's largely the same people who call Clarence Thomas "Uncle Tom" for being conservative and engage in all sorts of despicable bigotry rationalized under the banner of progressivism.
Posted by: Dan at August 25, 2012 9:42 AM"Legitimate Rape"
Posted by: Jim Jebow at August 25, 2012 11:47 AMDoes anyone really have to say anything else?
Yes. What are you trying to say? That one man's ignorance is attributable to all men? Is this the new original sin?
Contraceptive rights? Perhaps I'm missing something--but last I looked these items are sold in about every drugstore in the U.S. Or do you mean your "right" to have others pay for your contraception? Because I really wish that someone responsible would pay for the stuff I want too--but then I grew up and realized if I wanted something, I got a job and earned it.
Hyperbole and repeating inane talking points isn't a replacement for thinking...
Posted by: Mike678 at August 25, 2012 12:17 PMCandace, how is not letting mothers bring their kids on the DNC floor about abortion rights? I wrote about the DNC. Do you agree with their stance on kids on the floor?
Posted by: Patrick at August 25, 2012 5:33 PMPatrick, you are trying to equate mothers bringing kids into the DNC with much more serious issues such as abortion and contraception. Your agreement goes like this: if feminists are saying the Democrats don't care about mothers, it is akin to these same people saying Republicans are waging a war on women. In other words, feminists are saying both parties are in some way against women, so since one argument is a specific, minor, and isolated case, the other is as well, a classic bait and switch. BTW, most progressive Democrats, feminists too, you'll be glad to know, are upset that the DNC is holding its convention in a right to work state. This doesn't mean these Democrats think the party is anti-labor.
Posted by: Candace McCall at August 25, 2012 7:07 PM"upset that the DNC is holding its convention in a right to work state"
Ah yes, the heinous crime of allowing workers to choose whether to join a union or not. This must be stamped out at once and those workers must be forced to join and pay thousands of dollars to a union against their will so the money can be funneled to candidates they don't support. That is the moral, progressive thing to do.
Posted by: Dan at August 25, 2012 7:47 PMCandace, why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth (or post). I didn't say anything about propaganda or abortion or reproduction rights. I simply asked why Rhode Island's national Democrats are not standing up for the delegate mothers and demanding that they be allowed to bring their children on to the floor. I'm going to guess that you agree with me that it was a poor choice by the DNC organizers as you keep trying to change the conversation into a different direction. I'm simply asking a question, so why are you trying to claim that I'm saying something else?
Posted by: Patrick at August 25, 2012 9:15 PM