Hey, congratulations on a post title that really *ought* to bring readers flocking!
The article is one more example of that over-the-top inflammatory wording that buries a few valid points. I really think that if women *were* to put such ultra-right social conservatives in power and *if* that were to get a solid prosperous economy stabilized (that "if" is a differnt topic), re-instituting second-class-citizen status for women would still be a bad bargain.
Which doesn't mean that i think birth control coverage, as a single item, has that level of importance. I think that to most of us who've encountered untenable expenses in real life-threatening illnesses, protection for that matters more.
But it's not just birth control. That is only part of the real rollback of women's rights that Santorum and ultra-rightists want, and while you may say that their economic policies could pass while such extreme social views won't, i'm less sure of that than ever. The support i'm seeing floors me, and the demeaning laws Trudeau is lampooning this week, and statements like (in the article you link): "In the Democrat mind, sex without sex's consequences are the only thing that women should think about when they approach a voting booth.
show exactly where they stand on women's autonomy. That's why many of us who'd otherwise say "Fine, skip the contraceptives *and* the flus and sore throats, just protect us from major-illness bankruptcy," are hesitant to appear to agree that the contraceptive coverage doesn't matter. They've set it up so that we'd be saying, "Well, yeah, we are asking tax payers to fund our Free LuuuV, so we'll bow out." Birth control may not need to be covered, but it isn't an independent issue. It's part of a package of rightwing rage at women not obeying, staying "chaste," or keeping to their male-dominated place. You don't subscribe to that. Probably most libertarians and many conservatives don't subscribe to that. We're talking ultra-right, but it's only *you* guys with kind-of voting membership in the non-Democrat club, who can contain their extremism in the fringe it belongs in.
I think I agree with a lot of what you had to say. Mr. Santorum and similarly minded individuals bother me because of their narrow view of individual liberty on a much broader range of issues.
I think the quote you cited is demeaning in that it does seem to represent the approach use by a lot of the Democratic leadership. They use that approach with lots of special interest groups.
"We will support a couple of things that might be marginally good for you, but we expect your support on a broader range of issues."
I contend that the "broader range" contains some stuff that creates enough harm to overcompensate for the marginal good they might do.
While I am sure that there are some folks that do want women as second class citizens, I don't think that is driving this issue for GOP women. They really do feel that opposing abortion is about saving unborn lives.
It is a moral argument that is ignored by many on the left. Instead of ignoring the issue and calling those folks uneducated, backwards, and other names, perhaps it would be better to engage them on the issue?
In any case, it is starting to look like the best outcome for this November is to vote like it's 1994. Hand the Congress to the GOP and let Mr. Obama finish out a second term. There ought to be enough gridlock to keep too many bad things from happening!
2 comments:
Hey, congratulations on a post title that really *ought* to bring readers flocking!
The article is one more example of that over-the-top inflammatory wording that buries a few valid points. I really think that if women *were* to put such ultra-right social conservatives in power and *if* that were to get a solid prosperous economy stabilized (that "if" is a differnt topic), re-instituting second-class-citizen status for women would still be a bad bargain.
Which doesn't mean that i think birth control coverage, as a single item, has that level of importance. I think that to most of us who've encountered untenable expenses in real life-threatening illnesses, protection for that matters more.
But it's not just birth control. That is only part of the real rollback of women's rights that Santorum and ultra-rightists want, and while you may say that their economic policies could pass while such extreme social views won't, i'm less sure of that than ever. The support i'm seeing floors me, and the demeaning laws Trudeau is lampooning this week, and statements like (in the article you link):
"In the Democrat mind, sex without sex's consequences are the only thing that women should think about when they approach a voting booth.
show exactly where they stand on women's autonomy. That's why many of us who'd otherwise say "Fine, skip the contraceptives *and* the flus and sore throats, just protect us from major-illness bankruptcy," are hesitant to appear to agree that the contraceptive coverage doesn't matter. They've set it up so that we'd be saying, "Well, yeah, we are asking tax payers to fund our Free LuuuV, so we'll bow out." Birth control may not need to be covered, but it isn't an independent issue. It's part of a package of rightwing rage at women not obeying, staying "chaste," or keeping to their male-dominated place. You don't subscribe to that. Probably most libertarians and many conservatives don't subscribe to that. We're talking ultra-right, but it's only *you* guys with kind-of voting membership in the non-Democrat club, who can contain their extremism in the fringe it belongs in.
Hi Ruth,
Thanks! I do try to pack 'em in!
I think I agree with a lot of what you had to say. Mr. Santorum and similarly minded individuals bother me because of their narrow view of individual liberty on a much broader range of issues.
I think the quote you cited is demeaning in that it does seem to represent the approach use by a lot of the Democratic leadership. They use that approach with lots of special interest groups.
"We will support a couple of things that might be marginally good for you, but we expect your support on a broader range of issues."
I contend that the "broader range" contains some stuff that creates enough harm to overcompensate for the marginal good they might do.
While I am sure that there are some folks that do want women as second class citizens, I don't think that is driving this issue for GOP women. They really do feel that opposing abortion is about saving unborn lives.
It is a moral argument that is ignored by many on the left. Instead of ignoring the issue and calling those folks uneducated, backwards, and other names, perhaps it would be better to engage them on the issue?
In any case, it is starting to look like the best outcome for this November is to vote like it's 1994. Hand the Congress to the GOP and let Mr. Obama finish out a second term. There ought to be enough gridlock to keep too many bad things from happening!
Post a Comment