Real Misogyny: Debunking the War on Women

[JoeB131]

But your bizarre mentality that a woman should tolerate being called a "slut" because she wants to pick the time when she gets pregnant, because, gosh darn, at least we aren't strapping you down and mutilating your pussy like those bad old Muslims.

Calling a woman a slut because she claims she has a lot of sex constitutes a war on women?
No wonder why you people have to keep dredging this up( the slut thing) to keep this stupid shit in the spotlight...
Hey genius. Nobody cares.
It's not going to be a successful campaign issue.
On the other hand....

Well, actually, it probably will, if the GOP nominated more clowns pandering to the Christian Right and their moral views.

The thing was, there was a legitimate policy question here- should religious employers be compelled to pay for treatments that violate their beliefs?

Which all got obscured when the Oxycotin Kid started screaming "slut" at this woman because she testified in front of Congress that some women have valid medical needs for contraception.

And of coure, the Weird Mormon Robot couldn't stand up to Limbaugh.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Nobody screamed.....
Your side made that up....And Obama looked like an idiot in calling that woman to see if "she was alright"...
Lame.
The fact is there are women all over the world that are in severe stress, being mistreated, mutilated, murdered, etc all over the world...And you people claim there is a war on women here.
Look, this so called war does not exist. In fact, the lame stream media has forgotten about it.
They are looking for an airliner.

Actually, Obama hit electoral gold... which is why he won women overall by 55-44.

The real question is, why does the GOP keep walking into this trap. It's like Charlie Brown and the football!

 

[JoeB131]

I do want to give Spoon credit for making cogent argument and responding to what people are saying, unlike PunkoTard, who thinks screaming at people is debate.

SO I'm going to give him a Pos Rep.

 

[Disir]

Yes. That is what he is saying. It is the same logic he uses to proclaim that gay people are not discriminated against here......as we don't execute them.

He's a fucking scholar. The rest of us are simply swimming in shallow water. We cannot reach his depth.

Nice. So, no myths have been debunked by a comparison.

It smacks of wife beatin' logic.

No....This is typical lib bullshit...You people make claims. When someone disagrees, instead of providing facts to support your claims, you reply with "prove to us that what we claim is not true."
We are no longer playing your stupid game.
There is no verifiable statement, no factual background, not supporting facts indicating any war on women..NONE.

What are you going on about?

The "War on Women" describes the legislative and rhetorical attacks on women and women’s rights taking place across the nation. In includes a wide-range of policy efforts designed to place restrictions on women's health care and erode protections for women and their families. Examples at the state and federal level have included restricting contraception; cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood; state-mandated, medically unnecessary ultrasounds; abortion taxes; abortion waiting periods; forcing women to tell their employers why they want birth control, and prohibiting insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their policies
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/war-women

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just to clarify, you are stating that the war on women in the US is not occurring because women are mistreated in the Middle East. Yes?

Yes.

The OP’s is a failed and idiotic ‘argument.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nice. So, no myths have been debunked by a comparison.

It smacks of wife beatin' logic.

No....This is typical lib bullshit...You people make claims. When someone disagrees, instead of providing facts to support your claims, you reply with "prove to us that what we claim is not true."
We are no longer playing your stupid game.
There is no verifiable statement, no factual background, not supporting facts indicating any war on women..NONE.

What are you going on about?

The "War on Women" describes the legislative and rhetorical attacks on women and women’s rights taking place across the nation. In includes a wide-range of policy efforts designed to place restrictions on women's health care and erode protections for women and their families. Examples at the state and federal level have included restricting contraception; cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood; state-mandated, medically unnecessary ultrasounds; abortion taxes; abortion waiting periods; forcing women to tell their employers why they want birth control, and prohibiting insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their policies
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/war-women

And the hypocrisy of the right is telling, where ‘small government’ conservatives become advocates of pointless, intrusive regulatory policies, more and bigger government, and granting the state greater authority at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

Nobody screamed.....
Your side made that up....And Obama looked like an idiot in calling that woman to see if "she was alright"...
Lame.
The fact is there are women all over the world that are in severe stress, being mistreated, mutilated, murdered, etc all over the world...And you people claim there is a war on women here.
Look, this so called war does not exist. In fact, the lame stream media has forgotten about it.
They are looking for an airliner.

Actually, Obama hit electoral gold... which is why he won women overall by 55-44.

The real question is, why does the GOP keep walking into this trap. It's like Charlie Brown and the football!

Because the social right, just like Lucy, promises the GOP that this time it will really be different.

 

[Unkotare]

When it's the first woman president (Hillary) instead of the first black President, how do you think those chicks are going to vote?

Unlike 'progressive' liberal hypocrites like you, I consider women to be individuals. I think women will vote for who they consider the better candidate.

 

[Crystalclear]

The fact that most Republicans are pro-life tells that women are not taken too seriously by the GOP.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone is pro-life.

The issue concerns respecting the right to privacy and placing restrictions on the state to protect the right to privacy.

That conservatives are hostile to privacy rights and seek to authorize the state to interfere in citizens’ personal matters is reason to believe the GOP is not serious about responsible governance.

 

[Unkotare]

The fact that most Republicans are pro-life tells that women are not taken too seriously by the GOP.

That statement is both illogical and irrational.

 

[Crystalclear]

The fact that most Republicans are pro-life tells that women are not taken too seriously by the GOP.

That statement is both illogical and irrational.

Why? They are being forced to be mothers.

 

[Disir]

Just to clarify, you are stating that the war on women in the US is not occurring because women are mistreated in the Middle East. Yes?

Yes.

The OP’s is a failed and idiotic ‘argument.’

It reminds me of an old joke about a guy who is standing under a lamp post looking on the ground. His friend walks up and asks what he is looking for. The man says that he is looking for his key. His friend asks if he has a general idea of where he might have lost it. The man says two blocks away. His friend asks him why he is looking for that key here if he lost it so far away. The man says it is because the light is better.

The OP says that there is no war on women and decides that he isn't going to talk about legislation. The problem is that is what it is about. It isn't some random battle cry for issues that have been resolved.

 

[Disir]

No....This is typical lib bullshit...You people make claims. When someone disagrees, instead of providing facts to support your claims, you reply with "prove to us that what we claim is not true."
We are no longer playing your stupid game.
There is no verifiable statement, no factual background, not supporting facts indicating any war on women..NONE.

What are you going on about?

The "War on Women" describes the legislative and rhetorical attacks on women and women’s rights taking place across the nation. In includes a wide-range of policy efforts designed to place restrictions on women's health care and erode protections for women and their families. Examples at the state and federal level have included restricting contraception; cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood; state-mandated, medically unnecessary ultrasounds; abortion taxes; abortion waiting periods; forcing women to tell their employers why they want birth control, and prohibiting insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their policies
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/war-women

And the hypocrisy of the right is telling, where ‘small government’ conservatives become advocates of pointless, intrusive regulatory policies, more and bigger government, and granting the state greater authority at the expense of individual liberty.

This is very true. What they really mean is rights exist for a specific class of people but not for anyone else. Those rights that they do acknowledge are doled out once they have decided that someone meets their very narrow and arbitrary criteria.

 

[Unkotare]

The fact that most Republicans are pro-life tells that women are not taken too seriously by the GOP.

That statement is both illogical and irrational.

Why? They are being forced to be mothers.

No, "they" are not, you idiot.

 

[JoeB131]

When it's the first woman president (Hillary) instead of the first black President, how do you think those chicks are going to vote?

Unlike 'progressive' liberal hypocrites like you, I consider women to be individuals. I think women will vote for who they consider the better candidate.

Yeah, you keep hoping that, spanky.

But given the choice between electing the first woman and some old white guy sucking up to the religious right.... well, it's not going to be pretty.

My guess, the GOP will take a bunch of false messages from any gains in 2014 and be even crazier in 2016... and then get crushed by Goldwater like proportions.

 

[driveby]

Women, homosexuals, the "poor", so many different demographics serve the liberal agenda as victims. Shame is, so many appear so incapable of independent thought, they fall into the trap and become useful tools.

How odd that they all have the same victimizes, heterosexual men.

How odd that you would post something this brilliant and inciteful, who knew there were no poor heterosexual men?........

 

[Unkotare]

When it's the first woman president (Hillary) instead of the first black President, how do you think those chicks are going to vote?

Unlike 'progressive' liberal hypocrites like you, I consider women to be individuals. I think women will vote for who they consider the better candidate.

Yeah, you keep hoping that, spanky. .

"Hoping" what? That women are individuals who can think for themselves rather than some faceless mass? Yeah I will, you misogynistic piece of shit. Typical fucking lefty asshole.

 

[JoeB131]

Unlike 'progressive' liberal hypocrites like you, I consider women to be individuals. I think women will vote for who they consider the better candidate.

Yeah, you keep hoping that, spanky. .

"Hoping" what? That women are individuals who can think for themselves rather than some faceless mass? Yeah I will, you misogynistic piece of shit. Typical fucking lefty asshole.

It would nice if you had responded to the whole sentence.

You realize it's against forum rules to edit posts to change hteir meaning, right?

Okay, one more time to see if you have an attention span.

First woman president

vs.

Old male asshole pandering to people who want to regulate their hoo-haas....

Gee, I think we know where most ladies are coming down on this one.

 

[Unkotare]

First woman president

vs.

Old male asshole pandering to people who want to regulate their hoo-haas....

False premise, you illogical, disingenuous asshole.