Skip to comments.How to debunk the 'war on women'
Posted on 01/31/2014 4:49:02 AM PST by TurboZamboni
WASHINGTON -- What is it about women that causes leading Republicans to grow clumsy, if not stupid? When even savvy, fluent, attractively populist Mike Huckabee stumbles, you know you've got trouble. Having already thrown away eminently winnable Senate seats in Missouri and Indiana because of moronic talk about rape, the GOP might have learned. You'd think.
Huckabee wasn't quite as egregious, just puzzling and a bit weird. Trying to make a point about Obamacare mandating free contraceptives, he inexplicably began speculating that the reason behind the freebie was the Democrats' belief that women need the federal government to protect them from their own libidos.
Bizarre. I can think of no Democrat who has ever said that, nor any liberal who even thinks that. Such a theory, when offered by a conservative, is quite unfortunately self-revealing.
In any case, why go wandering into the psychology of female sexuality in the first place? It's ridiculous. This is politics. Stick to policy. And there's a good policy question to be asked about the contraceptive mandate (even apart from its challenge to religious freedom). It's about priorities. By what moral logic does the state provide one woman with co-pay-free contraceptives while denying the same subvention to another woman when she urgently needs antibiotics for her sick child?
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Just use Ann Coulter’s line: The only confirmed kill in the war on women was by Ted Kennedy.
Seriously though I think the best response is to attack and demand proof. That goes for the BS racist claims too.
All a Republican has to do is say the word “woman” and the Democraps go off on how we all hate them. It’s become absurd and ridiculous.
better put some ice on that.
Krauthammer has gone wobbly. Rush knew how to handle this with the Sandra Fluke matter: Go on the attack!
IMHO the Republican party should emphasize personal freedom and self-determination - for all - without government suppression of these freedoms. We should be the party of compassion, for those in need, but with the goal that we help those people beyond their need - so that they too can enjoy freedom and self-determinism. We should emphasize that we don’t believe in discrimination based on race or gender, and refuse to get sucked into little wars of words that will just be paraphrased and used against us.
“By what moral logic does the state provide one woman with co-pay-free contraceptives while denying the same subvention to another woman when she urgently needs antibiotics for her sick child?”
That’s not even where the contraceptive debate should begin. If you start there, you have already lost. Why should the state compel one person to buy birth control for another person? Make them prove the affirmative case.
Why should the state compel one person to buy anything for another person? Medical care, education, housing, food ... private-pay or private charity.
I’ve read the Huckabee quote. I must be stupid because I can’t find anything in it that’s offensive. It’s just the truth!
Oh wait ...
NOW I get it ...
Rand Paul has begun to stab the “war on women” with Bill Clinton, and the media haven’t liked it!
Yep, let’s throw in a dash of debunking “white privilege” as well.
If there is such ubiquitous “white privilege”,
why is it that everyone with just a slight hint of enhanced skin melanin claims to be “black”.
EG: Who was that gal that claimed to be the “first African-American women” to get some sort of entertainment award? She was lighter than me!
Yep. You’ve hit on the core difference between conservatives and liberals. The former assign an individual’s well-being to the individual himself, secure in their respect for his liberty to manage his own life. Liberals only respect the Collective, the aggregate rights and characteristics of groups. There is no place in their world for individuals. All rights and freedoms (and responsibilities) evolve to the collective, to which various groups contribute and from which they benefit, usually with no proportion between the two.
A reasonable observer might conclude that the Limbaugh-Fluke dustup was a conspiracy between the two of them to assist the Democrats.
I believe that only personal effort or private, voluntary association can promote legitimate human flourishing.
It has to do with their assumption about the nature of man.
Their assumption is that man is “basically good” and the evil we see people perpetrating is entirely due to outside influences. This is why they seek to mold and control all of society.
Our assumption is aligned with the biblical reality that every human has an innate sin nature that causes him to act in evil ways unless he restrains himself. No amount of “environment” will change that nature, it’s an inner process.
That is the larger argument, but we are so far down the rabbit hole of the welfare state that it seems pointless. I think they could argue well, even if not persuasively, for the state providing at least some safety net. Because of the state’s intervention, the church has withered, and the private foundations have just become lobbying operations. Feeding and clothing the fellow man, somebody has to do it, and so forth. Of course they would be relying on the very religious tenets they abhor to advance a mostly emotional argument. These are people who are demonstrably not interested in private charity.
Charles needs to listen to Huckabee’s full quote instead of the Media Matters edited version.
Your point is reasonable.
If the goal is change the perception of Republicans (or conservatives) as anti-women, perhaps the emphasis should be on the fact that hormonal contraceptives are a Class-1 carcinogen as well as contributing to heart disease and stroke, that sterilization surgery has major short- and long-term health risks ... and in general that fertility, not sterility, is a positive feature of “women’s health.”
They could say something like, “Democrats want you to poison or mutilate yourself. We think you’re fine the way God made you!”
I think God put my libinlaw in our life in order to provide an example of the world’s thinking for my kids... :)
The other night, we were discussing various groups of folks throughout history, and any negative behavior was always explained with “because they were threatened”.
It was a great illustration that I could use to point out to my kids that as a result of the wrong assumption of human nature, people will always come to the wrong conclusions about the causes of behavior.
“Fertility, not sterility, is a positive feature of “women’s health.”
That is nothing short of brilliant! Why is the assumption always that women want to AVOID having children? Why have we let child-hating harridans define the discourse? There are millions of women who recognize the biological imperative of motherhood and embrace it. Why have we willingly sacrificed them to a flock of harpies?
You should consider public office yourself.
It's nice of you to say so! I had a notion to run for state representative some years back; my "big issue" was going to be the need for more left turn lanes. "Vote Wright, so you can turn left!"
But I had another baby, instead.
Seriously, I've worked on many campaigns, and being a candidate takes more drive than I have.
What you lack in time you make up for in vision and your baby’s gain is our loss. Conservatives need smart, visionary, articulate women to help us counter the myth that we’re all a bunch of creaky white geezers.
Someone in the state government agreed with me, because we have a lot more left-turn lanes than we used to.
I have four daughters. Maybe one of them will take up politics, or one of the hundreds of children I’ve taught in Sunday School or led in Girl Scouts and Cub Scouts.