Why women vote Republican
Please summarize the below thread in the editing box. You may use any wikitext in your summary. When you finish, click "Save page".
I HAVE to know, cause I do not get it. especially this last 5-6 months, and the "war on women". (I have a host of new things I should be updating, but i've been very negligent).
It's about as likely as anything not in the onion. ;-) I do wish it had not been a spoof though. ;-)
"War on Women" is certainly a punch-packing slogan/advertising campaign. We shall see if it gets the Democrats enough female votes.
Slogan? Some it's just some made up reality?
FFS, roughly 5 times more bills that directly effect a woman's access to abortion, birth control or other reproductive choices were initiated last year, than in 2009 when republicans were not in power. The four major candidates had a field day trying to see who was better at removing women's rights. And if you start looking at individual states, and the very real attack on fundamental rights to control our bodies, you will see even higher numbers of bills being presented.
this is not a slogan. it's not some 99% meaningless rhetoric. it's a very real attack on women and our right to access health care and reproductive control.
I would say it is more 99% meaningful rhetoric: replace "and our" with "'s" in the last paragraph and you have a fairly accurate assessment of the situation.
Slogan? Some it's just some made up reality? It is not allowed to use a slogan to describe actual occurrences? The process being followed here is: (1) the Republicans make use of increased opportunity to propose largely the same old women's-rights-infringing legislation that they have always advocated, maybe with a bit of window-dressing swapped around for variety; (2) the less idealistic Democrats see a golden opportunity to court the female vote by infusing their old arguments against this legislation with new life in the form of a creepy-sounding new slogan and a dash of identity politics.
One can gnash one's teeth at the bullshit, of course, but such is politics.
I dont' know why you want to remove the "our" from the sentence. it is OUR rights, not men's rights that are being attacked. Last time I looked, men didn't have to worry about medical birth control being removed from insurance, nor having to undergo ultrasounds to get access to basic medical care - when it's not medically warranted; nor having to prove that you were raped, before you can access basic, legal medical care.
To argue "well, we might have lost coverage of some medical issue if Blunt passed" is really just begging the victim.
I dont' know why you want to remove the "our" from the sentence. This is what a person gets for drawing a diff too narrowly. To perform the change in context:
"It's a very real attack on women and our right to access health care and reproductive control." → "It's a very real attack on women's right to access health care and reproductive control."
I don't understand you pretense at hyper intellectualism. Since I am a woman, and am part of the group "women" who's rights are being attacked, OUR is very much the appropriate word.
Well, if I had a stick up my arse right now, I'd object to "our" because it implies you, personally, are speaking on behalf of all women as a homogenised group that continually agree with everyone. Now, I have trouble saying that I speak on behalf of 30 people with respect to explicit shared interests, so I wouldn't be too sure that you could personally speak for 3.5 billion people on far wider reaching issues. It's an issue I find grates on me whenever I read things written by self-identified feminists (and some MRAs, of course, as widely opposed views tend to wrap around and meet each other again) that throw the word "men" and "women" around in this manner. It perpetuates some kind of mythical and epic confrontation that's just, at best, counterproductive and at worst a direct cause of what such people claim to be fighting against.
Imagine, for instance, Phyllis Schlafly discussing issues from her perspective and then adding an "our" in there, as if she spoke for you. You'd be pretty pissed then, because she doesn't speak for you so has no right to be claiming that in such a way, ya?
Anyway, that's if I was being a stickler for language use but frankly, your use of "our" is a subtle and innocent use of it rather than something more blatant. Not sure if that's what LX means or not, but it's the only objection I can think of.
Regardless if you agree or not, with what is being done to women, it *is* being done. so "our" rights are being effected. That's not "speaking for all women", it's stating a fact, and being inclusive in my attention that *i'm part of the fact itself*.
One of the powers of the word "our" is to state to people that this issue does directly effect me. "Gay marriage is a right, and it's time our voices are heard" means "i'm one of them there gay types". "The Smiths have a long battle with cancer, and our newest fight is to try to eat better".
"our rights" are our rights. saying "As women, we should fight for our rights" is, as you say "specking for women" - but just saying "here is a fact, and i'm part of that" isn't.
And yes, i actively and not innocently choose "our" in this context, because I very much am making a claim of identity and inclusion.
What I was trying to emphasize was that though these Republicans are going after women's rights, they are not going after women like the Nazis went after Jews or the Reds went after the bourgeoisie or Valerie Solanas would have gone after men.
It is true that feminists often use the term "woman" when they mean "feminist," but in this instance the rights of all women are hanging in the balance, and I agree that this can legitimately be highlighted even by someone who is not speaking for all women.
Also, there is a difference between putting a human face on an issue (and even this use of pathos can backfire if it gets too maudlin) and beating the war-drum of class struggle.
In other news, liberals are perpetrating the real "war on women."
One would think that a Republican, at least, would understand that the government's options are somewhat limited when it comes to the market, especially the private-sector job market.
But, as we all know, the State is an omnipontent entity capable of solving all problems only when your opponents are in charge of it; when you get in charge, you whistle a vastly different tune.