National Democrats’ War on Women Comes to Northern Virginia

Flopping Aces ^ | 01-19-14 | Brother Bob

[Starman417]

The radical left is at it again, bringing their extremist agenda against women, and this time it's coming to one of my local fights. I wrote a while back about how the left thinks that spreading disease among women and increasing their dependence on government equates empowerment, and how leftists think that women lack the intelligence to care about issues beyond those that those same sexist leftists use to define them by thier anotomical parts. For this post I want to first look at not so much at how Democrats vote or the policies that they endorse, but rather how they actually view women based on how they personally treat them. I doubt you need any introduction to the leftist rogues' gallery of misogyny - Clinton, Weiner, Spitzer, Ted Kennedy, etc. How is it that one can act in a manner that is so disrespectful toward the women in one's life and still be considered to be somehow "pro-women"? National Review's Rich Lowry breaks down the line of thought:

However, modern liberalism usually defines the world in terms of groups and group rights. The rights of the individual are much less important (see how often the Left criticizes our society as too individualistic or "go it alone") and their vision of a wise redistribution of money, power, authority, rights, etc. often requires the correct person or group to be in charge. Having the Left's preferred people in charge is, in fact, the preeminent value on the Left, and any other "rule" can be broken in its name -- i.e., it's okay to serve on corporate boards and make lots of money, as long as you donate to the party, etc.

We see the insanity of the notion of collective rights taken to a bizarre extreme in the treatment of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of celibate nuns being forced to pay for the contraception mandate:

The contraception mandate has always had a strong ideological impetus. Opponents of the mandate “want to roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius notoriously declared in 2011. “We’ve come a long way in women’s health over the last few decades, but we are in a war.” By this bizarre way of thinking, a small congregation of nuns that cares for the most vulnerable is somehow complicit in a war on women’s health.

Let's look at part of Lowry's earlier quote again. To paraphrase something I remember hearing a while back from either Scott Ott or Bill Whittle (can't remember which) saying, the left is only interested in collective rights, where the right of the individual does not matter. This is how leftist men can abuse the women in their lives however much they want and as long as they are sufficiently powerful and have the "correct" opinions the radicals of the feminist movement will leave them alone. Heck, they'll even defend their behavior based on what they do for the Greater Good. The NY Post's Michael E. Bongiorno rips into this line of thought:

In the dogmatic world of progressive ideology, a liberal politician can be forgiven for the serial abuse of women as long as he pays homage to a virtually unfettered “right” to an abortion, preferably paid for with taxpayer dollars. As a result, the Democrats’ War on Women continues, with Generals Weiner, Lopez, Silver, Clinton and Spitzer leading the way.

This also brings us to the uncomfortable question that no leftist wants asked about Hillary Clinton: How does any self respecting woman put up with a man who has so little respect for her that he continuously humiliates her publicly? In my opinion, I've always seen their marriage as a power relationship, nothing more. If Bill had any respect for his wife he wouldn't chase every skirt that walked in front of him (whether willing or unwilling) , and if Hillary had any respect for herself she would have gone Lorena Bobbitt on Bill or left him long ago. I don't think she's stupid enough to not have known about all of his cheating on her, nor does Hillary strike me as the battered wife too afraid to leave. But however convenient for her career goals, how can the treatment that she allows from her husband be seen as any kind of role model for women?

For that matter, if you're still giving these guys an excuse based on their good works how would you feel if your wife/sister/daughter was married to a man who treated her the way Clinton or Spitzer did? How about Ted Kennedy? Somehow if she responded "It's OK, he fully supports my reproductive rights" you'd be calling friends and family for an intervention. So where are the feminists, whose silence in failure to condemn these men, speaks so much louder than words?

Folks reading this also probably remember the name of Republican Todd Akin, who bought that memorable term "legitimate rape" to the 2012 election cycle. Was this an idiotic thing to say? Absolutely. And yet for some reason Evie Hudak of Colorodo has not become a household name:

[rktman]

DUDE! That is one fugly picture. I also thought it was a war on fetuses. Or is if feti?

[Albion Wilde]

the left thinks that spreading disease among women and increasing their dependence on government equates empowerment, and ... think that women lack the intelligence to care about issues beyond those that those same sexist leftists use to define them by thier anotomical parts.

In a nutshell.

[dowcaet]

The war on women? How many young female babies have been wiped out because of the Democratic Party’s all out support for abortion? Now that’s a real “war on women”.

[GreyFriar]

she will not say what she is for, just that she is against a man who might not favor the abortion of full term bables, and other items that he, as a state congressman, is NOT in a position to counteract or abolish federal legislation and supreme court decisions. She appeals to the emotions of a brainwashed female population who don’t apparently know what federal law is. K

[Dilbert San Diego]

The liberals have a strong totalitarian streak in their thinking.

They decry racism and every other ism, but, it seems that they want various groups to remain downtrodden, so they can “help” them.

For example, they claim to want to help minorities trapped in ghettos, but are against plans such as school choice, which might help ghetto children get a better education. The liberals tend to be in favor of ever increasing public assistance programs, which create generation after generation on public assistance. The liberals seem not to want people to escape public assistance programs.

The liberals want people in their place. They want blacks to stay dependent, not become indenpendent, or (gasp) conservative. Same with women, who are defined by only reproductive matters. Same with homosexuals. Even though homosexuals are freer now to live their lives as they see fit, openly, we still have to listen to the narrative that the homosexual is downtrodden. In spite of some studies showing that gays have higher incomes and more professional achievement than average, we have to listen to talk about how they are discriminated against. And how only liberals can help them.

A gay or minority conservative is a traitor in the liberal world, because membership in an officially recognized grievance group means that you are supposed to be liberal.

[fella]

I wrote a while back about how the left thinks that spreading disease among women and increasing their dependence on government equates empowerment

It does empower . . . . the liberals.

[deputytess]

America’s first tyrannies office holder. Another great

Historical achievement. God help us!

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Starman417.

Va. quickly emerging as key in gay marriage fight
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3113392/posts

[billhilly]

I somehow missed the Northern Virginia connection.