![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The GOP’s War On Women. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
The GOP, of course, says they are not waging a war on women. The problem is: how do you convince people of that when yr busy proposing and passing legislation to restrict female (and only female) reproductive rights and make equal pay (a problem generally faced by women, not guys) harder to fight for in court?
Well, apart from pointing to conservative (and, you'll notice, female) superstars like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Gov. Nikki Haley, Gov. Jan Brewer (and lookit what she just signed), etc, many of them are opting for a classic counterargument: “The Liberal Obamedia made the whole ‘war on women’ meme up to make Americans forget that Obama wrecked the economy and wants to convert you all to Islam.”
Which is fine for the choir, but this is an election year, so how do you pitch to the swing vote?
They could always try a little honesty (chicks fall for that every time, dude) and point out that anti-abortion bills are not about women per se – they’re about innocent babies, embryos, zygotes and eggs, and what they think Jesus wants Republicans to do about them. The fact that women (and only women) are affected by these bills is really irrelevant to them.
That's probably true. On the other hand, if you want to convince women that you’ve got nothing against them and they’ve got you all wrong – and given how the female vote is shaping up, it’s in the interest of the GOP to do just that – it’s hard to think of a less persuasive defense than: “It’s not that we hate you, it’s just that yr feelings about this don’t matter.” (You might as well say, “Why do you insist on making this about you?”)
Which I think is why Mitt Romney has forsaken the above two strategies and opted for the “Hey, Democrats hate women WAY more than we do” argument.
His evidence: women account for over 92% of job losses since January 2009. Which is clearly because of Obama’s economic policies. Therefore Obama hates women. Therefore, you should vote Republican, ladies, because we’ll put you back to work (albeit for less pay than a guy, but look, do you want the job or not?).
The numbers are, of course, complete horseshit. But even if you take them at face value – and it’s safe to say that everyone on board the GOP train will do just that, because why not? – only a dingbat would describe that as a deliberate “war on women” by Obama. In order to believe that, you’d have to believe that Obama’s stimulus package and economic policies were deliberately tailored to disproportionately put women out of work.
In which case you would be a blithering idiot.
I know Romney is just trying to be clever and get everyone to talk about the economy again (which he can theoretically do now that Rick Santorum has dropped out). But it’s silly to equate an economic plan that impacts both sexes but unintentionally affects women more with legislation that specifically targets women and NOT men, and claim that the former is greater proof of misogyny.
To be fair, it could be said that it’s equally silly for women who disagree with Republican policies to characterize it as a full-on war. In which case I would seriously recommend reading this blog post from John Scalzi on male privilege and why it’s better to be a male than a female in America (or on Earth, probably), which in turn is why women have a right to feel irritated when mostly male politicians try to pass laws that make things less fair for women, regardless of their intentions.
It’s different for girls,
This is dF
The GOP, of course, says they are not waging a war on women. The problem is: how do you convince people of that when yr busy proposing and passing legislation to restrict female (and only female) reproductive rights and make equal pay (a problem generally faced by women, not guys) harder to fight for in court?
Well, apart from pointing to conservative (and, you'll notice, female) superstars like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Gov. Nikki Haley, Gov. Jan Brewer (and lookit what she just signed), etc, many of them are opting for a classic counterargument: “The Liberal Obamedia made the whole ‘war on women’ meme up to make Americans forget that Obama wrecked the economy and wants to convert you all to Islam.”
Which is fine for the choir, but this is an election year, so how do you pitch to the swing vote?
They could always try a little honesty (chicks fall for that every time, dude) and point out that anti-abortion bills are not about women per se – they’re about innocent babies, embryos, zygotes and eggs, and what they think Jesus wants Republicans to do about them. The fact that women (and only women) are affected by these bills is really irrelevant to them.
That's probably true. On the other hand, if you want to convince women that you’ve got nothing against them and they’ve got you all wrong – and given how the female vote is shaping up, it’s in the interest of the GOP to do just that – it’s hard to think of a less persuasive defense than: “It’s not that we hate you, it’s just that yr feelings about this don’t matter.” (You might as well say, “Why do you insist on making this about you?”)
Which I think is why Mitt Romney has forsaken the above two strategies and opted for the “Hey, Democrats hate women WAY more than we do” argument.
His evidence: women account for over 92% of job losses since January 2009. Which is clearly because of Obama’s economic policies. Therefore Obama hates women. Therefore, you should vote Republican, ladies, because we’ll put you back to work (albeit for less pay than a guy, but look, do you want the job or not?).
The numbers are, of course, complete horseshit. But even if you take them at face value – and it’s safe to say that everyone on board the GOP train will do just that, because why not? – only a dingbat would describe that as a deliberate “war on women” by Obama. In order to believe that, you’d have to believe that Obama’s stimulus package and economic policies were deliberately tailored to disproportionately put women out of work.
In which case you would be a blithering idiot.
I know Romney is just trying to be clever and get everyone to talk about the economy again (which he can theoretically do now that Rick Santorum has dropped out). But it’s silly to equate an economic plan that impacts both sexes but unintentionally affects women more with legislation that specifically targets women and NOT men, and claim that the former is greater proof of misogyny.
To be fair, it could be said that it’s equally silly for women who disagree with Republican policies to characterize it as a full-on war. In which case I would seriously recommend reading this blog post from John Scalzi on male privilege and why it’s better to be a male than a female in America (or on Earth, probably), which in turn is why women have a right to feel irritated when mostly male politicians try to pass laws that make things less fair for women, regardless of their intentions.
It’s different for girls,
This is dF
