- This topic has 29 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Republicans love to project the terrorist threat in terms of religion, Muslim versus Christian, but the real issue is the control of women. We have witnessed this behavior right here on pdxradio.com. The Christian religions and their most vocal proponents, based on distorted interpretations of biblical teachings, do not overtly support the stoning of women or their sale into bondage in the modern era, yet it is clearly part of their historical doctrines. Rightwing fundamental extremists, who also falsely claim Christianity as their own, clearly pursue laws that regulate women’s bodies and force them into subservient roles. Fundamentalists are being rejected by the vast majority, and all that remains are thin power grabs through artificial democratic constructs. The vast majority of citizens live in urban areas, while more radicalized and narrow-minded minorities can be found seeking shelter in vast rural, gerrymandered areas of the country. We observe this right here in Oregon in the eastern and southern portions of the state.
The politicians and their faithful continue to deny that this war on women exists. The proof is in the policy, and policy trumps words. Here is a surreal list of legislation that proves the war on women is very real.
If Republicans were mysogynists and supported mystogynistic legislation, they would not have been overwhelmingly elected to offices on the state and national level. They rule.
Mysogony means to “hate women,” and yet male Republican legislators have mothers, wives, sisters and daughters who they love. And of course there are female Republican legislators.
The “misogony” routine will only fly on a message board and not in real life. Any fair minded person regardless of how they vote understands that the motivation behind what is being mischaracterized as “misogony” is to save lives, half of which are female.
I know I’ve never met a Republican who hates women.They hate for women to have reproductive rights and IIRC you are one of them.
Wow, this thread just gave me the inspiration to say…there is nothing here to read…no issue here…bye.
F&B “I know I’ve never met a Republican who hates women.”
Clearly you have no clue, ace. This topic flies on a lot more than this message board, and for the umpteenth time the reason there were some GOP House gains on election day is due to gerrymandering, not by winning the female vote. Also, in the 10 most competitive Senate races in the 2014 midterm elections, GOP candidates won the women vote in just two races, Kentucky and Arkansas, which are deeply red states that Republicans are expected to win in 2016, when Americans choose Hillary as the new president. If you even had a modicum of self respect, you would research some of these things instead of just watching Faux news.
For Katrina Shealy, being South Carolina’s only female state senator means facing some unique challenges. The main one seems to be fellow state senator Tom Corbin.
That’s when Corbin – no stranger to making bizarre statements – is said to have begun needling his lone female colleague regarding her gender.
“I see it only took me two years to get you wearing shoes,” Corbin told [State Sen. Katrina Shealy], who was elected in 2012 as a petition candidate.This was apparently an oblique barefoot and pregnant reference, and a staffer notes that “he makes comments like that all the time.”
At one point in the conversation – which quickly escalated into a confrontation – Shealy is said to have angrily asked Corbin where he “got off” attacking women. […]
“Well, you know God created man first,” Corbin said, reportedly smirking at Shealy. “Then he took the rib out of man to make woman. And you know, a rib is a lesser cut of meat.”I suspect our South Carolina-based commenters will be able to offer up a laundry list of Tom Corbin’s past insanities, because this fellow apparently hasn’t been right in the head for a very long time. Imagine being State Senator Katrina Shealy and having to deal with this clown every day on the job. Whatever she’s being paid, it’s not enough.
I become confused. First liberals want to say that Republicans hate women, then they want to shower us with posts about Republicans having affairs with women.
Confusing.
Yes. Exactly like the “Kennedy boys” and “Presidet Clinton” <eyeroll>
BTW, it won’t be too long before you’ll have to specify which President Clinton you are referring to.
Since this thread’s title references the culture war, I would like to interject something that relates directly to changes in culture–at least corporate workplace culture.
I have been working in semiconductor and electronics engineering in some capacity or another since 1995. This field is heavily male-dominated today, as it was back in the mid 1990s. However, the overall feel of the workplace culture is different. In the first few years that I worked, I noticed that there was a “boy’s club” atmosphere at the office, where sexist jokes or generalizations/complaints about women were used as a form of male bonding. When I did my first internship in 1995, some of the engineers in my group even took me and the other intern from my school on a surprise lunch trip to a strip bar as a farewell.
Although sexist jabs generally fell out of favor during the 2000s, I think that revisions to corporate policies were what really changed the atmosphere. A company where I worked instituted a zero-tolerance harrassment policy that introduced the concept that harrassment is not defined by the intent of words or actions but rather how those words or actions are received. The harrassment policy covered just about any protected class: gender, nationality, sexual orientation, disabilities, and possibly other things. I know of at least one person who was fired, supposedly for harrassing another employee (to protect the privacy of the individuals involved, this type of information is not shared freely within a company).
I don’t think it’s “hate” as much as it is a severe lack of respect. And to be fair, that isn’t just a GOP thing.
F&B does have a point with the Kennedys and President Clinton – it’s a lack of respect, and poor judgement. (Or, to take it to a whole different level, John Edwards). The difference is that the Kennedys and Bill Clinton didn’t run and exist on a platform based on moral superiority like the GOP tends to, so they don’t risk being viewed as hypocrites.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.