Posted on 11/10/2014 3:40:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Whether liberals would like to admit it or not; 2014 was a historic moment for women, especially Republican women. Besides it being a wave election, Republicans elected the first female senators from Iowa and West Virginia, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, and the first black Republican woman–Mia Love–in Utah.
Yet, these were Republican women; they’re a horrid subset of the human species beholden to their patriarchal masters according to feminists. Well, it all comes down to abortion–again–and this super-secret conspiracy to make life for American women–and women around the world–miserable (via the Guardian) [emphasis mine]:
In a way, female Republicans almost bother me more than their male counterparts. I can almost understand why a bunch of rich, religiously conservative white men wouldn’t care about the reality of women’s day-to-day lives – they’ve never had to. But throwing other women under the bus? For what? Lower taxes? Three minutes on Fox News in the 3pm hour? It makes me wonder what is wrong with you.
Politics is personal. It’s not about a platform to which no one hews, or about some words on a teleprompter, or even some indecipherable language in a bill. My horror at Tuesday night’s election results springs from knowing the personal and economic degradation to which the Republican party is willing to subject American women – and women throughout the world – and that other women are helping them to do it.
…
This may have been an election of firsts for Republicans – and women – but it’s not a “win” for women. Equal representation is important, but it doesn’t equal justice.
…
Regardless of your gender, if you align yourself with a party that has historically and consistently targeted women’s rights, health and lives – let alone a party that pats women on the head as it strips away those rights from us – you should understand why women aren’t applauding in solidarity with you this week. And maybe you should be at least a little ashamed.
Valenti’s column was certainly popcorn worthy, as were other liberal commentaries lamenting of the abject slaughter their party suffered last Tuesday, but shouldn’t the fact that Republicans–and women–were able to make history before Democrats a sign of a narrative that’s becoming increasingly stale? Is the “War on Women” dead?
Emily Zanotti at the American Spectator wrote, “the war on women is over, and we [Republicans] won:”
It didn’t help that the War on Women morphed into an improv comedy sketch. In Colorado, where Democrat Mark Udall lost his Senate seat to Republican Cory Gardner, the campaign ended with a radio ad suggesting that the GOP would ban birth control, which would cause a statewide shortage of condoms, which would force the state’s nameless girlfriends to rely on their boyfriends for condescending political advice. Cosmopolitan magazine, which has made giving questionable information to its readership an editorial policy, launched a campaign aimed at educating low-information single female voters, starting with a complaint about terming young women "Beyoncé voters" paired with a kickoff graphic of Beyoncé, and ending with a party bus full of male models carting college students to the polls.
…
What happened? Mark Udall ended up looking like a creeper, more concerned with his constituents sex lives than with their concerns.
…
The left put the feminists in their vanguard, and the whole mess went off a cliff. Women got the message that all the Democrats think about is their vaginas (when they think about women at all).
On the other hand, liberal women, Valenti and co.’s people, got killed. Katie compiled the butcher’s bill last week.
Yet, not all feminists took the Valenti route and scoffed at the historic gains made by Republican women. Some know that women voters have disagreements, they have different opinions, and don't all fall within the hard left’s feminist paradigm on issues that make them acceptable human beings.
Jessica Grose over at Slate wrote about how women voters, even liberal ones, were glad to see Democrats, like Sen. Mark Udall, lose because they were all too focused on abortion. Oh, and there was a slight dig at her colleagues over reading exit polls properly [emphasis mine]:
A headline on the Cut announces that the midterm election results were “Bad News for Women.” Under it, Ann Friedman argues that even though there were several “prominent victories” for Republican women this week—including combat veteran and hog castrator Joni Ernst in Iowa, black Mormon Mia Love in Utah, and youngest woman to ever be elected to Congress Elise Stefanik in New York—because they do not support abortion rights and are pro-gun, that means their wins are not a boon for women.
I’m not sure I agree. If you are against everything Joni Ernst or Mia Love stand for, then this election was bad for you, and the policies you care about, not bad for women. It should be obvious, but “women”—half the population—are not a uniform voting block with uniform ideas about what is best for them. Though Friedman claims that Ernst was “a woman candidate whom most women voted against,” NBC’s Iowa exit poll shows that’s just not the case: Ernst and her opponent Bruce Braley split the female vote evenly, 49 to 49 percent. Though I personally find Ernst’s far right views terrifying (she believes in fetal personhood and wants to abolish the EPA and the Department of Education), “women” in Iowa do not agree with me, and she’s their representative, not mine.
…
[T]hough the right to choose is incredibly important to people like me and Ann Friedman, it’s not as important to a good portion of the female electorate. And even women who do care deeply about reproductive rights don’t necessarily like being treated as one-issue voters. Two anecdotal examples: After the election, a woman I think of as a deeply feminist Colorado resident—she has devoted her life to fighting sexual assault—posted on Facebook that she was glad to see Democratic Sen. Mark Udall lose his race. “The ads angered me,” she wrote of Udall’s TV commercials like “Backwards,” which focused on women’s access to abortion and contraception. “As a woman, all I care about is my private parts? I have nothing else on my mind, like, I don't know, everything else?” Another woman who voted against Udall, who is a self-declared feminist and fan of Gloria Steinem, told CNN, “I want grandkids. I want security. I don't want to worry about paying the bills…[Udall is] pandering on the choice issue, trying to scare women. I don't scare anymore. I'm beyond that.”
Grose concluded that a barrier to women becoming more represented in government is that fact that they choose not to run in the first place. She noted that maybe a black Republican woman, like Mia Love, hailing from “lily-white” Utah would inspire younger women to follow suit–and not “assume the electorate is stacked against them.”
This is a more levelheaded analysis. It also points out that perhaps Democrats became too comfortable with the 2012 exit polls. Demography is not destiny–and women voters are a shiftable voting bloc; a Gloria Steinem fan voted against Udall because she saw right through his malarkey and was more concerned about other issues.
Maybe it’s time for Democrats and feminists to end their monomaniacal obsession with abortion and birth control, but I doubt it.
Maybe it’s time for Democrats to consider that perhaps some women have children, which they didn’t figure to either abort or smother in their sleep, and are now concerned about their growing child finding a DECENT JOB, and not just any minimum wage job?
Spot on.
Not clear what she's talking about. Fox pretty obviously plasters women all over the screen.
Admittedly, the women in question are often mainly eye candy (of generally high quality!, but it's just not possible to claim that Fox excludes women.
To me, a very poorly written article. First paragraph talks about someone saying something about Republican women but doesn’t specifically name the person (until later on, I guess - still not clear). Actually I quit reading halfway through it because it seemed disjointed and muddled.
I love it that Mark Udall will now and forever be known as “former senator Mark Uterus”.
Gee,and all this time I thought the Rats were demanding that we get more women involved in the GOP.Somehow,we never seem to get it right! (end sarcasm)
They certainly let them speak their minds. That’s for sure!
Hangs out in the wrong part of town with no clothes on, does she? Seriesly, who writes this dreck?
What bothers these lib “womyn” is there doesn’t exist beyond the realm of their own fantasies a monolothic bloc of women who will, on command, vote as told by liberal opinion-makers. Libs will “allow” for women to channeled into one of two tracks:
1) The angry, hairy-legged, bald-headed, tattood lesbos sauntering from place to place (for some reason, as if it applied to them) squawking for abortion rights for all.
2) The lifelong government-worshipping drone, aka “Julia,” who, from cradle to grave, depends on government assistance to meet every need. These women are inculcated into believing the milk and honey of life are provided only through government largesse.
The idea of a strong, independent-thinking, conservative member of the female species is absolutely abhorrent and downright befuddling to them.
tattood=tattooed
My wife wasn’t going to vote in these past elections....till she saw the ad featuring none other than Michelle Nunn advocating abortion for late term babies. We’re expecting our 3rd child...that was enough for her to cuss up a storm and vote against the bit*h for David Perdue.
“...they’re a horrid subset of the human species beholden to their patriarchal masters…”
LOL…what about Hillary, who lied for her adulterous husband (in her Betty Crocker pink suit under the portrait of Lincoln no less), to keep her position in the Democrat Party? No Republican woman in the public eye has never stooped as low as Hillary did. She set the standard for groveling.
“are often mainly eye candy”
oh really?
“Mainly”?
Which ones are incompetent?
Which ones are less competent than their liberal counterparts?
This always grinds me. Whenever I encounter some malcontent liberal scream about people having the audacity to want their taxes lowered, I always tell them, "I'm sure the federal government will be happy to accept a check in any amount you care to send them to make up for taxes you seem to think aren't high enough". I never hear a retort.
If you don’t read Stacy McCain at his The Other McCain blog, you’ve have missed his fantastic work doing a necropsy on “Feminism”. Basically a feminist is a crazy (mentally ill) lesbian, who blames the world for her difficulties.
Sigh.
Do you seriously contend they were hired primarily for their competence and incisive analysis?
I don’t see Fox often, mostly because I don’t have a TV or cable, but I’m generally impressed by how intelligent as well as beautiful their female commentators are. I think Megyn Kelly, what I’ve seen of her, is excellent.
But I really, really doubt any of them would have been hired were their looks not as specified.
I find it very sad that all females on TV now apparently have to look like refugees from Planet Gorgeous. Even newspeople.
Much prefer Brit TV, where the humans look like actual humans much of the time.
I have nothing against beautiful women, quite the reverse, but don’t you find the absence of normal looking females a trifle wearing?
He could have stated her name before the link, thus allowing readers to avoid from having to follow the link to "The Guardian" which I personally find to be a useless left-wing piece of trash to begin with.
While I agree with him to provide the link, he could have mentioned her name so the reader would have know who he was talking about and could make the choice to follow the link or not.
Clicking on links in an article willy nilly is like standing in a crowded bar kissing ever girl there to see if she is the right one.
One gambles with all manner of Herpes and other related maladies - as with clicking on foreign links whose prologue doesn’t even provide basic information. Poor organization, still disjointed and poorly written, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.