Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama White House Reinvents Republican War on Women

Although one recent poll showed that Mitt Romney was not doing as well with women as he was with men, Obama’s internal polls must show that his support among women is quite soft.  And his team is doing everything it can to play to women’s fears about the horrible, no good and very bad things that might happen if the Republicans and their diabolical social conservative henchmen came to power next January.

Over at the Daily Caller (via Instapundit), Jeff Poor reports on how Charles Krauthammer took apart the White House claim that its upcoming “National Women’s Issues Conference” is anything but a political stunt; that sage pundit called “White House spokesman Jay Carney’s response to a question about conference posed by Fox News Channel’s White House correspondent, Ed Henry, . . .’shameless and over-the-top’”:

“According to Jay Carney, it has nothing at all to do with the election,” Krauthammer said. “They actually think they can say that and do it with a straight face and get away with it. I mean, all the administrations use taxpayer money to promote themselves in an election year. But this is pretty shameless and over-the-top.”

He said that this conference stemmed from the recent contraception debate that was given birth by the media.

“Notice how when the president said, ‘This is about a wide range of issues. It isn’t just about’ — and what’s the one thing he named immediately? Contraception. Of course it is about contraception,” Krauthammer said. “It’s because of the way it was handled and the media covered it — it became all of a sudden a war on the women, which is a complete invention.”

Krauthammer later points out how the media have collaborated in inventing this war on women.  Just read the whole thing to see what it means.

Perhaps now we should be grateful for George Stephanopolous’s question about contraception during the WMUR debate back in January.  The likely Republican nominee didn’t take the former Clinton aide’s bait and offered a response which should assure all but the most politicized women that he has no intention to make an issue of contraception.  Instead of his words becoming a sound byte for the Democratic offense against the GOP; they should instead serve as defense against an outrageous and dishonest claims that Republicans have declared war on women.

Krauthammer is right.  It is shameless how politicized this administration has become.

UPDATE (from Bruce):  Glenn Reynolds reports about another front in Obama’s #WarOnWomen:

“Obama played 23 rounds of golf between January and October of 2009 before inviting a single woman to his foursome, the New York Times reported. This was emblematic of broader concerns over the president’s preference for the company and advice of men.”

Share

43 Comments

  1. Although one recent poll showed that Mitt Romney was not doing as well with women as he was with men, Obama’s internal polls must show that his support among women is quite soft.

    More like: Romney’s clearly stretching very hard to appeal to his base, who want to ban abortion and restrict contraception, while still retaining some appeal to mainstream women voters, who tend to not want to ban abortion or restrict contraception. So here’s an idea, lets make him stretch even more and see what breaks first.

    It’s not very nice, but show me the law that says election campaigning has to be nice. It’s effective, and I don’t think it’s entirely untrue. It’s certainly not Democrats in all those states trying to pass ever more ludicrous restrictions on abortion. I recently thought of an analogy for this where Democrats are machine-gunning Republicans with rhetoric about reproductive rights and abortion access, meanwhile the Republicans complain loudly about being shot at even as they hand the Democrats yet another box of ammo.

    It’s an image just waiting for a political cartoonist to pick up on it (assuming none already has).

    Comment by Serenity — April 6, 2012 @ 7:13 am - April 6, 2012

  2. I juat cannot beleive there are people who are so stupid that they actually believe that the Republicans are instituting a war on women when it is liberals who wanted Obamacare which gives the government control over womens’ bodies. It is the liberals who called for women’s lib which all but eliminates chivalry. It is liberals who view women as simple sex objects and baby machines who use them for sex and reproduction and encourage divorce which leaves women and their children unsupported. It is liberals who destroyed the black family through welfare, it is liberals who encourage women to kill their unborn. See, the war on women is and always has been perpetrated by progressive liberals/democrats.

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — April 6, 2012 @ 8:24 am - April 6, 2012

  3. Libeals are also the ones who diminish to role of being a housewife and raising children. As id this full time work is not enough and not valuable to society, they want women to have two careers as housewife AND working full time in the workforce. Liberals want women to be worked to death.

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — April 6, 2012 @ 8:33 am - April 6, 2012

  4. Yes, I know, a few spelling errors. My apologies for not catching them before hitting, “say it!”

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — April 6, 2012 @ 8:34 am - April 6, 2012

  5. it is liberals who wanted Obamacare which gives the government control over womens’ bodies.

    In what sense? I’d like an insight into your thinking on this point, because I don’t see it.

    It is the liberals who called for women’s lib which all but eliminates chivalry.

    …and replaced it with encouraging women to stand on their own merits and be seen as equals. The warped thinking in this quote is the root cause of Republican problems with women.

    It is liberals who view women as simple sex objects and baby machines

    Which is why we advocate contraception mandates and easy access to abortion so women have complete control over whether they’d like to be pregnant or not?

    who use them for sex and reproduction and encourage divorce which leaves women and their children unsupported.

    Unless the women happen to be working women, which is increasingly common thanks to the women’s lib movement. Also, ever heard of child support payments?

    Also, divorce happen before women’s lib (the Koran details how divorce is to be done in Islam, and that was written 1400 years ago!) the difference today is that women get a say in the matter.

    It is liberals who destroyed the black family through welfare,

    Funny that most blacks seem to disagree with you.

    it is liberals who encourage women to kill their unborn.

    Because we view them as nothing but baby machines, right? So we encourage them to get abortions, which somehow makes them into baby machines. Despite them not having a baby in that case…

    See, the war on women is and always has been perpetrated by progressive liberals/democrats.

    No, I don’t.

    Also, your ‘Democratic War on Women’ is predicated on defining women’s lib, contraception, abortion access, and equal access to divorce as constituting a ‘War on Women’ despite the majority of women seeing these as the victories of the feminist movement and attempts to roll them back as the actual War on Women.

    Which brings us back to the polls. The War on Women rhetoric works because the charges being made are true, you even admit it. Your only recourse is to try and change the definitions of the terms used in the debate, and that’s never going to work. Because guess what? Women aren’t stupid.

    Comment by Serenity — April 6, 2012 @ 8:45 am - April 6, 2012

  6. Libeals are also the ones who diminish to role of being a housewife and raising children.

    Women are free to be what they want. As it turns out, a lot of women actually have similar dreams to men, ones that go beyond housework and raising children. The fact that you seem to view this as an aberration in the natural scheme of things that would disappear if not for ‘those damn liberals’ speaks volumes yet again.

    As id this full time work is not enough and not valuable to society, they want women to have two careers as housewife AND working full time in the workforce.

    No, women would actually prefer to share the housework, as my own parents did for many years. Equality, see? Women get jobs, men help with housework. It cuts both ways.

    Liberals want women to be worked to death.

    Again, your thinking is so transparent. The idea of actual equality, of the roles of both men and women changing, never even occurs to you. You see the role of women changing and assume that’s it, that’s all that’s changing, liberals just want to pile more work on women! Because liberals hate women! Why? Just because! Why do women go along with it and reliably vote for liberals? Who knows? You certainly don’t, but you had a narrative to maintain, logic be damned!

    Comment by Serenity — April 6, 2012 @ 8:54 am - April 6, 2012

  7. You can look at it two ways. Republicans do poorly among women and Democrats cannot scratch out many votes from men.

    Comment by davinci — April 6, 2012 @ 8:54 am - April 6, 2012

  8. Wow, Amy has her knickers in a bunch this morning, but this takes the cake.

    Which is why we advocate contraception mandates and easy access to abortion so women have complete control over whether they’d like to be pregnant or not?

    So let’s get this straight. Amy’s perfectly fine with a) making someone else pay for her birth control (note, Amy clearly states that she’s talking about pregnancy, so the ‘Women’s health’ falls flat) and killing the child who had the unfortunate circumstance of being in a mother who couldn’t keep her legs together?

    Again, Amy’s talking about “whether they’d like to be pregnant or not” so we’re not talking about the big three.

    You are a sick sick parasite, Amy.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 6, 2012 @ 8:58 am - April 6, 2012

  9. Here is how Serenity frames the false argument:

    Romney’s clearly stretching very hard to appeal to his base, who want to ban abortion and restrict contraception, while still retaining some appeal to mainstream women voters, who tend to not want to ban abortion or restrict contraception.

    Get it?

    The Republican base wants to ban abortion.

    The Republican base wants to restrict contraception.

    Women tend to not blah, blah, blah. (What a weasel word “tend” is ….. but, it is there.)

    Now for the deconstruction:

    A small part of the Republican base would like to see abortion banned. That is true.

    The Republican base in general would like to see abortion become rare. In that respect, the base, in general, does not accept abortion as a just an everyday, garden variety form of birth control.

    The Republican base, in general, opposes funding Planned Parenthood with tax payer dollars to perform abortions. To my knowledge, the Republican base, in general, has never tried to keep Planned Parenthood from using its funds solicited from non-government sources for performing abortions.

    The various states have enacted or attempted to enact rules concerning waiting periods, parental consent, parental notification, informed content and so forth before an abortion can be performed. None of that is equivalent to a ban on abortion.

    Serenity must know of her own duplicity in framing the argument, for she also made this statement:

    It’s certainly not Democrats in all those states trying to pass ever more ludicrous restrictions on abortion.

    It seems fair to assume that Serenity sees any “encumbrance” on dropping in for an abortion on a whim as the road straight to banning abortion. Oh, well.

    “Restricting contraception” is just too open and ludicrous to approach. Of course contraception has to be restricted. You can’t package it as gum and let toddlers ingest chemicals that would be toxic to their systems. The issue is not about restricting contraception at all. That is a ruse and a bad ruse. The issue is whether the principal can take girls she sees as minks down to Planned Parenthood and get a contraceptive implant or send the girl to the school nurse for an aspirin and a morning after pill. That is to say, whether the state bureaucrat can intervene in loco parentis in managing a child’s sex life.

    However, Obama has determined that the Catholic Church must fund contraceptives and if it does not, then Republication favor restricting contraception. See how that process works?

    Oh, yeah, and women tend to not want the Catholic Church to get away with not funding contraceptives. Whew!

    Comment by heliotrope — April 6, 2012 @ 9:51 am - April 6, 2012

  10. If the “liberal” women and gays are so damn scared about what’s going to happen under the Republicans (female enslavement, gay death camps and what-have-you), they should have been buying guns and learning how to use them, just like said Republicans have been doing for the last 200+ years – isn’t that why the 2nd Amendment exists?

    But noooo, they want Big Daddy Government to disarm all the nasty people and protect them – never dreaming that one day Big Daddy Government might become the nasty person.

    Comment by perturbed — April 6, 2012 @ 9:52 am - April 6, 2012

  11. Here we have a Democrat senate candidate calling her opponent a “whore.”

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/war-on-women-continues-senate-candidate-calls-opponent-whore/

    It’s OK when Democrats do it, right.

    She also seems to be something of an anti-Semite and hates the American military… placing her solidly in the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2012 @ 10:39 am - April 6, 2012

  12. This is kind of an non-event anyway. Any political juice they got over the contraception issue was squeezed out when this was fresh news a month and a half ago. This is just wheel spinning, plain and simple. If this is what they are going to run on for the next six months, they are doomed to slink out of the White House on Jan 4.

    PS. If they do lose the election, I wonder if all the “M”‘s will be removed from the computer keyboards?

    Comment by sonicfrog — April 6, 2012 @ 11:36 am - April 6, 2012

  13. and replaced it with encouraging women to stand on their own merits and be seen as equals.

    Which is, of course, why Pomposity and its ilk demand hiring quotas, contract preference, special rules, and different policies for women, none of which would be needed if they viewed women as truly “equal”.

    Conservatives view women as thinking and intelligent human beings. Liberals like Pomposity and Barack Obama view them as infantilized imbeciles who are incapable of thinking for or controlling themselves and need the patriarchal government to buy them goodies, keep them from ever having to meet performance standards or be judged by their character rather than their gender, and so forth.

    Poor little parasite Pomposity is just trying another way to mooch with this, and that’s typical.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2012 @ 11:40 am - April 6, 2012

  14. In what sense? I’d like an insight into your thinking on this point, because I don’t see it.

    Easy, Pomposity.

    You have stated that having anyone dictate what you can and cannot purchase, require you to purchase something yourself if someone says you don’t need it, or increasing what you have to pay out of pocket for something you want is taking away your “freedom” and violates your “rights”.

    Obamacare dictates what you can and cannot purchase, requires you to pay for things yourself if the government doesn’t think you need it, and increases what you have to pay out of pocket for something you want.

    The basic problem we have here is that you are so fundamentally lazy that you can’t even conceptualize actually having to pay for something you want. You are a parasite and a moocher, so you have created the concept that you are “banned” from buying something unless someone else is paying for it. Reaching into your own pocket and paying your own bills is beyond your capability to understand.

    The key to dealing with people like you, Pomposity, is to institutionalize you. Since you insist that the government pay all your bills for you, we as the government should be allowed to dictate the conditions under which you live. If you want freedom to do as you please, you assume the responsibility for your bills.

    Do you like that, mooch?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2012 @ 11:51 am - April 6, 2012

  15. As an institution that is primarily concerned with protecting the aristocracy, the conservative movement is most certainly at war with women, and has been for much longer than the recent contraception flap. They’re not the only ones – if you’re anything other than a wealthy, straight, white male, you’re in some way or another opposed by conservatism, but we can keep the topic to women for the time being.

    As far as abortion, contraception, and sex education issues are concerned, conservatives believe themselves to be acting on orders from on high. As usual, this results in prescriptions that don’t have anything to do with the real life social consequences of unintended pregnancies – conservatives simply wish we would all agree to comply with their religious edicts. As issues that specifically (and arguably, almost exclusively) pertain to women, abortion laws and contraception availability impact how much education women receive, how much money they make, how healthy they are, and all manner of other important other statistics. Allowing women control over their own reproduction has done more for female equality than anything else. Republicans would prefer to take back that control, which would effectively erase decades of progress on all the fronts I listed above.

    Liberals are keenly aware that more and more reproductive freedom is a huge contributor to the advances that women have made in the past century, but all conservatives can do is jump around talking about the holocaust of the unborn and Obama’s healthcare bill, refusing to acknowledge the progress that’s been made, and playing stupid about the repercussions that would follow if reproductive rights were taken away. So yes – you are very much at war with women and that’s why so many of them don’t vote for you.

    Comment by Levi — April 6, 2012 @ 12:29 pm - April 6, 2012

  16. If you think the conservative movement is concerned with protecting the aristocracy, Levi, then you need to bone up on the intellectual background of the movement. To be sure, yes, there are some segments, very small ones, who like the notion of aristocracy, but overall the thrust has been for a free society allowing for social mobility.

    Better familiarize yourself with a political movement’s intellectual origins before reaching conclusions about its supposed animus to one sex.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 6, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - April 6, 2012

  17. Wait,

    Levi, who’s never even apologized for his racist comments, attacks on women, and outright lies in comments on this very blog, is declaring that Conservatives have a war on women?

    Hush Levi, adults are talking.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 6, 2012 @ 1:03 pm - April 6, 2012

  18. As an institution that is primarily concerned with protecting the aristocracy, the conservative movement is most certainly at war with women, and has been for much longer than the recent contraception flap. They’re not the only ones – if you’re anything other than a wealthy, straight, white male, you’re in some way or another opposed by conservatism, but we can keep the topic to women for the time being.

    Yup.

    Except conservatives define “aristocracy” by those who are willing to work hard, pay their taxes, take responsibility for their actions, and live by the rules. It’s an aristocracy based on merit and character.

    Liberals, on the other hand, cannot tolerate judging or value being set by character and actions. Liberals believe in the divine right of minorities to take from others, and adamantly oppose any sort of judgment or value establishment based on character, rather than on skin color, gender, or sexual orientation.

    As far as abortion, contraception, and sex education issues are concerned, conservatives believe themselves to be acting on orders from on high.

    Yup. From a plane of value and morals that state every human life is important and that people need to take responsibility for their actions.

    Liberals, on the other hand, operate from a purely selfish and narcissistic standpoint, stating that their immediate needs are most important and that the children their actions produce who are inconvenient can be neglected, dumped off on others, and outright killed.

    As issues that specifically (and arguably, almost exclusively) pertain to women, abortion laws and contraception availability impact how much education women receive, how much money they make, how healthy they are, and all manner of other important other statistics.

    Yup. Except conservatives, seeing women as equal and intelligent human beings, believe that women are more than capable of making these choices and, if they so choose, balancing their lives to include childraising.

    Liberals, on the other hand, given their self-centered and narcissistic worldview, insist that the only way women can “advance” is to eliminate children and childrearing. Abortion is the holy sacrament of liberals, and is required in order for a woman to be truly “advanced” in their worldview; they demean and disparage those women who choose to be mothers.

    Allowing women control over their own reproduction has done more for female equality than anything else. Republicans would prefer to take back that control, which would effectively erase decades of progress on all the fronts I listed above.

    This again heightens the problem. Republicans and conservatives, having treated women as co-equals in charge of their own bodies and reproductive tracts for centuries, meaning that they respect women’s ability to choose when, how, and under what conditions they have sex, including requiring their partner to abstain or wear a condom.

    For Levi and other liberals, women are objects for the sexual pleasure and desire of liberal men, and have no ability to say no or request anything of their sexual partners. Pregnancy is an inconvenience for liberal men, since it renders women sexually unavailable and unattractive — notice how Levi and his fellow liberals continually rant about how ugly pregnant women are. Furthermore, Levi has no intention of taking responsibility for his child; he wants sex when he wants it, with no consequences, no responsibility, and no limitation. Hence why he insists on forcing women to have sex, as we see with the OWS rapes and assaults; why he devalues and attacks pregnant women and mothers, since he finds them sexually unattractive and unavailable; and why he demands the government pay for abortions, because he certainly has no intention of wearing a condom or taking responsibility for a child.

    Liberals are keenly aware that more and more reproductive freedom is a huge contributor to the advances that women have made in the past century, but all conservatives can do is jump around talking about the holocaust of the unborn and Obama’s healthcare bill, refusing to acknowledge the progress that’s been made, and playing stupid about the repercussions that would follow if reproductive rights were taken away.

    Conservatives are well aware of the “repercussions”; liberal men like Levi have made great strides in institutionalizing rape, irresponsibility, and lack of commitment as the birthright of men, and reducing women to nothing more than sexual vessels for Levi and his fellow liberal men to rape and insist that they kill their baby or be mocked as ugly, barefoot, and pregnant.

    The whole debate over “contraception” has nothing to do with what women want. It has everything to do with Levi mooching and wanting the government to facilitate his continued and ongoing misogyny.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - April 6, 2012

  19. Meanwhile, back in reality,

    If you’re any colour but black, DC doesn’t want you.

    Just another example of Liberals demonstrating the hatred they accuse others of.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 6, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - April 6, 2012

  20. And Livewire, don’t forget; Levi lives in the DC area, and endorses and supports the DC Obama Party, which is the one screaming that Asians are “dirty” and how they want them run out of town.

    I guess Asians scare Levi. That’s why he and his fellow lily-white liberal racists join up with black racists like Barack Obama and Marion Berry to attack Hispanics and Asians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2012 @ 1:24 pm - April 6, 2012

  21. 15 – “holocaust of the unborn”

    Seems to me that classifying, 54,559,615 abortions since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions as a “holocaust” is understating the situation.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 6, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - April 6, 2012

  22. Absolutely true, Richard, but remember it from Levi’s perspective; babies, children, and lives are irrelevant. His immediate sexual gratification is what’s relevant, and for him to use a condom or pay for birth control pills is infringing on his freedom.

    Once you realize that liberals simply place their promiscuity as a greater good than avoiding infanticide, their worldview becomes coherent. It’s sick, amoral, and disgusting, but it at least falls into place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2012 @ 1:54 pm - April 6, 2012

  23. His immediate imagined sexual gratification is what’s relevant.

    Fixed.

    Does make me wonder what Ward Levi lives in.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 6, 2012 @ 1:57 pm - April 6, 2012

  24. So, when a liberal Time magazine editor asks the Indian-American woman governor of South Carolina if she tips cab-drivers in New York City more if they’re Sikhs… who is making war on what?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/05/time-mag-to-nikki-haley-so-do-you-give-sikh-taxi-drivers-bigger-tips-or-what/

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2012 @ 2:08 pm - April 6, 2012

  25. real life social consequences of unintended pregnancies

    So, Levi, how do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? Is this tied to “how” pregnancies occur? Are you talking about “risks” of becoming pregnant or the “fact” that “unwanted” pregnancy is a likelihood?

    What are the “social consequences” of “unintended” pregnancy? Why is there a societal interest in prevented “unintended” pregnancy? Why not just take the baby and raise it in some utopian government-knows-best institution where all manner of university created, proper parenting can be instilled?

    As issues that specifically (and arguably, almost exclusively) pertain to women, abortion laws and contraception availability impact how much education women receive, how much money they make, how healthy they are, and all manner of other important other statistics.

    Cool! With over 15 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, women must have escaped poverty by droves. They haven’t? Then shouldn’t you social engineers get down to the projects and sterilize the minks and get them headed off for an MBA? Why has the war on poverty been stuck in the trenches with all the money and social engineering that has been thrown at it? How is it that “unwanted” pregnancy rates by economic strata vary so much? Do the “men” play any role? Or do we just kill the cells after the sex and stick the female with the problem?Is that how liberal men see feminism?

    Allowing women control over their own reproduction has done more for female equality than anything else.

    I love this concept. The man plays, the woman pays. The woman dumps the hump and there is no error, no foul. The man plays, the woman pays. The woman dumps the hump and there is no error, no foul. And on and on.

    You liberal men are really small potatoes. But you are s-o-o-o compassionate.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 6, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - April 6, 2012

  26. Absolutely true, Richard, but remember it from Levi’s perspective; babies, children, and lives anyone who can’t or won’t vote DEMOCRAT are is irrelevant.

    Fixed it for you.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — April 6, 2012 @ 2:58 pm - April 6, 2012

  27. Allowing women control over their own reproduction has done more for female equality than anything else.

    The poverty rates of single mothers say otherwise.

    Women have lost big time in the sexual revolution. Women used to have to secure a commitment from men before consenting to sex with them. Now, women are expected to be sluts, or men just move onto the next one. Men can get sex without committing to a woman. Great for horny men. Not so great for women. Devastating for children.

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2012 @ 3:14 pm - April 6, 2012

  28. Women have lost big time in the sexual revolution. Women used to have to secure a commitment from men before consenting to sex with them. Now, women are expected to be sluts, or men just move onto the next one. Men can get sex without committing to a woman. Great for horny men. Not so great for women. Devastating for children.

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2012 @ 3:14 pm – April 6, 2012

    I love this concept. The man plays, the woman pays. The woman dumps the hump and there is no error, no foul. The man plays, the woman pays. The woman dumps the hump and there is no error, no foul. And on and on.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 6, 2012 @ 2:28 pm – April 6, 2012

    V and Heliotrope, you broke the code.

    Levi and Pomposity are nothing more than the worst types of misogynists. They see women as vaginas and nothing else, and they want no one and nothing in any way restricting their immediate on-demand access to them.

    Once you recognize this, you can see why liberal women are so insanely obsessed with abortion. They have been stripped of the right to say no or to demand commitment of their sexual partners. They are mercilessly mocked and pitied and attacked as prudes if they practice any type of abstinence. They have it made clear since day one that to Levi and his liberal ilk, their only value is as sexual toys for liberal men.

    The only commodity they have of any value to Levi and his fellow liberal men is to put out sexually. The only power they have is to kill the end result. Abortion is the only way in which liberal women can feel empowered, because they have been so dehumanized and objectified by Levi and his fellow misogynists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2012 @ 3:26 pm - April 6, 2012

  29. 27 – “Devastating for children”

    I hope everyone will take just a moment to let that sink in.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 6, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - April 6, 2012

  30. It’s hilariously tragic that male-run entertainment media have made women into sexual commodities; and sent the message that if a woman doesn’t have the same desire to be as sexually promiscuous as a man, then she is dysfunctional. The sexual degradation of women is a product of the sexually promiscuous culture created by male elites and, ironically, cheered on by feminists.

    Comment by V the K — April 6, 2012 @ 4:32 pm - April 6, 2012

  31. 30 – “The sexual degradation of women is a product of the sexually promiscuous culture created by male elites”

    It’s an easy thing for non elite males like me to do as well I’m afraid. Women as an object of entertainment isn’t a hard concept to grasp and requires no thought at all, especially if youth and horemones are involved. It’s a deception though, because it’s experiencing just one thing and missing all the rest.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 6, 2012 @ 5:46 pm - April 6, 2012

  32. If you think the conservative movement is concerned with protecting the aristocracy, Levi, then you need to bone up on the intellectual background of the movement. To be sure, yes, there are some segments, very small ones, who like the notion of aristocracy, but overall the thrust has been for a free society allowing for social mobility.

    Better familiarize yourself with a political movement’s intellectual origins before reaching conclusions about its supposed animus to one sex.

    Conservatism is what it is. There’s nothing new about it, it’s the same as it’s been for thousands of years – people with power doing whatever they can to hang onto their power. It’s about protecting the status quo, because at any given moment, a certain number of people are benefiting tremendously from the status quo. Conservative arguments haven’t evolved, basically at all, for centuries. This is why you hear conservatives invoke tradition so much, this is why conservatives despise science so much – conservatism hates change because change upends an established order that someone, somewhere is profiting from. Energy is a great example. Conservatives would have us trust oil executives on issues relating to the environment and climate change as if they’re not acting purely out of their own self-interest, while climate scientists are relegated to the inherently discredited category because their data and forecasts are inconvenient and would require lots of adjustments to the economy. It’s a position that sacrifices the future and the community for the sake of a few individuals – that’s conservatism in a nutshell.

    Reproduction issues are the same thing. Why do we have to pretend like it’s reasonable to be opposed to contraception in any way? Why do we have to pretend that people opposed to contraception are somehow on the moral high ground? Opposition to contraception is as stupid as it is insidious, but hey, religion needs new recruits, doesn’t it? The heady days before the demographic transition, when couples gave birth to 6 to 8 kids are over, so how does religion replenish its supply of converts? By opposing contraception and contraception, of course. Never mind that contraception and abortion are extremely beneficial to women all over the world, it hurts the church so it must be a horrible thing. Another instance where a few individuals would tell the rest of civilization that they need to sacrifice so that their order can be maintained.

    Of course, every economic position taken by conservatives is completely dedicated to further enriching the already incredibly super rich. Nowadays, you don’t even bother to hide it – on issues of the economy you want the rich to be richer and all other considerations be damned. That’s why the discussion is always about how much lower you can cut taxes, that’s why conservatives rail against government regulation of the economy. This one is really too easy.

    So as far as your movement’s intellectual origins are concerned, I think you need to take a better look. You’re the inheritors of an ideology that has firmly stood against science, revolution, and progress for thousands of years. This is nothing to be proud of.

    Comment by Levi — April 7, 2012 @ 4:12 am - April 7, 2012

  33. 32 – “a certain number of people are benefiting tremendously from the status quo”

    You mean like the vast majority of people?

    “while climate scientists are relegated to the inherently discredited category because their data and forecasts are inconvenient”

    I work with field biologists and science PHDs on a regular basis. I can tell you that the people in science who think as you do are the academics and recent graduates. There is no consensus among the working science communty that says the data we have proves or disproves man made global warming.

    “Opposition to contraception is as stupid”

    I’m guessing your referring to the recent show that was staged by democrats in warshinton? I thought that was about income redistribution so that a few could have free contraception on the dime of others? BTW, the Catholic Church actually approves of a contrception method that is free.

    “every economic position taken by conservatives is completely dedicated to further enriching the already incredibly super rich.”

    Actually, that’s not true. Most Conservatives I know are against the “crony capitalism” and “corporate welfare” that is concentrating money and opportunity in warshinton instead of throughout the country.

    “You’re the inheritors of an ideology that has firmly stood against science, revolution, and progress for thousands of years.”

    So, “Big Oil” has stood against science? Conservatives are against heart transplants and genetic breakthroughs? Conservative support for individualism isn’t revolutionary/radical?

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 7, 2012 @ 9:46 am - April 7, 2012

  34. #32: “Conservatism is what it is. There’s nothing new about it, it’s the same as it’s been for thousands of years – people with power doing whatever they can to hang onto their power.”

    When a leftist uses the word ‘power,’ just substitute the word ‘property’ and you can see exactly what their position is.

    Comment by Sean A — April 7, 2012 @ 1:55 pm - April 7, 2012

  35. P.S. Levi’s assertion that conservatism is about “people with power doing whatever they can to hang onto their power” is pure projection. Progressivism is about power–power to take the property of others, power over other people’s lives, and clinging to political power at all costs. Just look at the post with the video showing Jay Carney doing his usual dishonest scrambling. Progressive ideas and policies have always failed but that didn’t stop Obama and the Democrats from skipping down the path to ruin anyway. So now that Obama and the Dems have a record of unmitigated failure, the only way for them to hold onto their power is to keep repeating outrageous lies and hope their supporters are as stupid as they assume them to be.

    Comment by Sean A — April 7, 2012 @ 2:25 pm - April 7, 2012

  36. As an institution that is primarily concerned with protecting the aristocracy,

    Where’s the encouragement and the motivation from liberals that more people work hard and become rich or have wealth on any level? Americans are told over and over that the rich are evil and we’re all better off if we’re equally poor and miserable. This, of course, comes with the wink and a nudge to their millionaire donors and financial backers.

    There’s a piece, this week, in Queerty about millionaire gays. Noticeably absent from the article is any mention as to whether they’re paying “their fair share”. There’s no mention that they’re evil though. One commenter mentioned how it’s “inspiring”. This all leads one to suspect that it’s ok to be rich as long as you’re a liberal and you toe the line.

    conservatives simply wish we would all agree to comply with their religious edicts.

    How’s gay marriage working out with the blacks?

    while climate scientists are relegated to the inherently discredited category because their data and forecasts are inconvenient and would require lots of adjustments to the economy.

    Actually, they’re relegated to the discredited category because of their manufacturing of data and forecasts. Not to mention that their predictions have yet to come true. The North Pole is still there and we haven’t had more active hurricane seasons with more Katrina like storms. “Because we say so” is not science and anybody who still believes a damn thing these scienticians say are the ones who hate science.

    That’s why the discussion is always about how much lower you can cut taxes

    We know from reality and experience that lower taxes generates more revenue. We also know that if you want less of something, you tax it. If raising taxes actually worked, you’d think Senate liberals would’ve passed Obama’s budget. They have no intention of doing so and then going back to their districts and campaign on raising taxes.

    people with power doing whatever they can to hang onto their power.

    Obama has nothing in his record to campaign on. Zip, zero, nada. That’s why we have to have a manufactured “Republican War on Women”, Trayvon Martin kerfuffle, voter ID laws, bullying etc. That’s also why we have calls for boycotts of Rush’s sponsors, Walmart, Coke, Skittles, Arizona tea, Sanford, FL, Florida etc. etc. etc. All are distractions designed to keep people from considering what a SCOAMF Obama is and so that he can maintain his grip on what? POWER. It’s all about giving him four more years of the Same We Can Believe In while nobody’s paying attention.

    Comment by TGC — April 7, 2012 @ 4:32 pm - April 7, 2012

  37. Don’t forgeg it’s liberals who take away women’s weapons thus leaving them more vulnerable to crime and it’s liberal mayors who often cut police and fire first, leaving women more vulnerable.

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — April 7, 2012 @ 5:07 pm - April 7, 2012

  38. And isn’t it an insult to women to suggest that they’re more concerned about free contraception than they are the shitty liberal economy and high unemployment? The only one supposedly benefitting from the distraction is a man. Plus, it was a man who brought up the contraception distraction at the Republican debate. If it’s so important to women, why didn’t a woman bring it up?

    Is there any poll data showing that free contraception and infanticide are their top concerns?

    Comment by TGC — April 7, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - April 7, 2012

  39. Gee, when is Levi going to stop being such an overly sensitive crybaby who has to rant for paragraph after paragraph every time one of his shibboleths is questioned?

    Comment by V the K — April 7, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - April 7, 2012

  40. I can’t add much to the attempts to educate Levi and the subsequent mocking, except this.

    Hush Levi, the adults are talking

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 7, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - April 7, 2012

  41. More evidence of the left’s wars.

    I also take from Levi’s inability to address Marion Barry’s comments, that he shares the Councilman’s hatred of Asians and Whites.

    Not surprising again that Levi shows he’s a woman hating racist bigot.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 7, 2012 @ 11:16 pm - April 7, 2012

  42. Not surprising again that Levi shows he’s a woman hating racist bigot.

    You left out “and thoroughly loathsome waste of perfectly good skin.”

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — April 8, 2012 @ 1:06 am - April 8, 2012

  43. You left out “and thoroughly loathsome waste of perfectly good skin.”

    And bandwidth which could be used to discuss something really meaningful like the differences between the Nachos Bell Grande and Nachos Supreme.

    Comment by TGC — April 8, 2012 @ 5:15 am - April 8, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.