Spotted by TBogg at the Tea Party counter-rally in Wisconsin:
It really does capture the current GOP attitude toward women, doesn’t it?
Barry’s BlueSky- Untitled April 24, 2024And there's a written version! https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/24/zionism-seder-protest-new-york-gaza-israel [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled April 24, 2024Naomi Klein on how Zionism has become a false idol. https://youtu.be/U75KcMUjMyI?si=uZuV_UNZkWXNFYG3&t=198
- Untitled April 24, 2024The Leader of All Manhood has issued his ruling: It's gay for men to love sex with women. Guys: If you hate sex with women, you can do it and be straight. But if you love sex with women, that's gay. If you want to be straight, fuck men instead. Sorry, but that's the rule.
- Untitled April 23, 2024Aaargh it's midnight and I was tired and thinking of going to bed and then I read something that pissed me off because I am stupid.
- Untitled April 24, 2024
Do the signs carried by the union capture the current progressive attitudes towards their subjects?
Robert, your question is irrelevant and tedious in the extreme.
Merely because an image is apropos does not mean that some other image is apropos. Merely because some image is not apropos does not mean that some other image is also not apropos.
Merely because a sign held by a Koch brothers stooge at a rally incidentally reflects GOP attitudes towards women does not say anything one way or another about what the signs held by pro-labor protesters reflect.
If you honestly think that Jeff was claiming that this sign represented evidence of the views of the GOP, then you are honestly an idiot.
If you want to argue that GOP attitudes are not hostile and contemptuous of women, go ahead and try. If not, you really don’t have anything to say on this comment thread and would be better off going back to advocating for a return to the glory days of government in the Gilded Age over on some other thread. Your banal attempts at pedantry have little to add on this thread.
Shorter Charles:
It doesn’t count when my side does it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/althouse/5459757758/
Both sides do it.
And by “it,” I mean make fun of the most offensive signs used by the other side.
There are certainly misogynistic Democrats, as there are misogynistic Republicans. The difference, as Charles alluded to, is that the policies Democrats push are less misogynistic.
the policies Democrats push are less misogynistic
From your point of view. From the conservative point of view, progressive policies kill 600,000 unborn American women-to-be every year; they’d call THAT pretty misogynistic, too.
Of course, you guys will say that those women aren’t actually humans, so it doesn’t count. This would not impress the conservative movement, the honest members of which remember, at least historically, a time when it was our side saying that the people we were oppressing weren’t really human so it didn’t count.
Both sides do it, and by “do it” I mean imagine that their ideology is morally vastly superior to the other team.
I don’t see it.
Actually, even accepting for a moment the ridiculous and inane premise that there’s no moral difference between a zygote and a ten-year-old, I’m confused as to how abortion is misogynistic. In the US, abortion is not sex-selective; female and male fetuses are 99.9999% of the time treated the same. You might as well claim parking tickets are anti-male because half of the cars ticketed are owned by men.
You’re unspecific in your historic comparison; I’m guessing you might be referring to pro-slavery arguments, in which case you’d be mistaken. But let’s put that aside for a moment.
Your argument seems to be:
1) There was a time in history when it was commonly said that “X are not people.” (For example, Nazis said Jews were not people.) [*]
2) In fact, X were people, and treating them as non-people was very immoral.
3) Therefore, it’s immoral to say that Y are not people.
The problem with this logic is that it leads to the conclusion that when I say chairs are not people, I’m making the same moral error the Nazis made.
I don’t think I’m a morally better person than a randomly picked Republican (I know myself too well!). But I do think my policies are morally superior. If I didn’t believe that, then I wouldn’t favor these policies.
[* You used the term “human,” which I find imprecise for this debate, because pro-choicers don’t deny that the zygote is made of human tissue. There are two senses to the word “human,” of course; the sense of being biologically human, and the sense of being a person. To avoid the ambiguity, I’ll use the term “person.”]
Ampersand beat me to it, but there’s nothing misogynist about something that happens to “men-to-be” and “women-to-be” in equal numbers.
So, since I’m genuinely curious, tell me a(nother) policy that Democrats push that Republicans think is misogynist – because from where I’m standing (as a woman, if the handle didn’t give you some idea), the party that just defunded Planned Parenthood is the one that hates women more. (Before anyone tries: ten Democrats voted for the amendment. 230 Republicans voted for it.)
Sex selective abortion happens here.
@Fangirl – same issue. Democrats push policies to fund abortions overseas; in many cultures overseas, sex-selective abortion is huge. Our immigrant subculture is their entire population, at least in some countries. And not tiny countries. It’s hard to put firm numbers on it, for obvious reasons, but measured population imbalances and other indirect analyses mean the figure likely can’t be less than millions per year (worldwide). China alone has about 1.4 million more boys than girls annually.
Robert, you may have been responding to Fangirl, but just to clarify:
I didn’t say that sex selective abortion never happens in the US; I said it’s very rare here. And the methods of the study you cited show I’m right; the overall sex birth ratio in the US, 1.047, is well within the range of biologically normal. Sex-selective abortion that happens in the US happens so rarely that it’s impossible to detect by looking at our national sex ratio.
News to me. Maybe it’s true, but I’d like to see the evidence. What policies are you referring to, specifically?
There is absolutely no agency in China providing abortions that the US has funded, or even considered funding, not even when the Democrats held both the presidency and the Congress.
However, the UN Population Fund — which has been shown again and again to reduce the demand for sex-selective abortions in China — is attacked by Republicans and defunded when Republicans are in power. So by the standard you’re suggesting, Republican policy, which increases sex-selective abortion in China, must be misogynistic.