The Democrats’ War on Women
March 16, 2012
THE degree to which the Republican Party has failed to respond to the Democratic Party’s current “War on Women” campaign is breathtaking. Once again we see a GOP leadership that is spineless and lacking in the most basic understanding of what should be its core principles.
In the face of Obama’s dictatorial mandate that employers provide contraception coverage and rejection by Republicans of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the Democrats are plugging away at the idea that Republicans are medieval misogynists. The Democrats had raised over a million dollars by early March with this utterly stupid campaign.
What should the Republicans say in response? Instead of shying from the battle, they should plunge in. They should point to what feminist values have brought to women: unwed motherhood, divorce, slavery to unsatisfying jobs, high rates of breast cancer, infertility, and sexual disease; demographic decline and children who are unhealthy, neglected and depressed.
Why can’t Republicans launch their own War on Women campaign? They can’t. The truth is, they think the Democrats are right.
— Comments —-
Mrs. M. writes:
How chilling to think the Republicans agree with the Democrats on the War on Women issues. I do not understand how this conclusion is drawn? Please explain; I’m intrigued.
Laura writes:
What have most GOP leaders (with Santorum being a major exception) said in response to the Democrats’ War on Women campaign? They have almost universally responded, out of fear of even approaching the substance of the contraception issue, “We are just trying to protect religious freedom!”
Well, of course, religious freedom is an important aspect of the issue, but the Democrats are attacking them on the issue at simpler level. They are pushing the idea that Republicans are not as enthusiastic about artificial contraception. And this is true! Republicans can’t evade it and they have a great line of defense without having to come right out and say all artificial contraception is wrong.
But instead, they run away.
Today’s New York Times reports that the House GOP has basically dropped the idea of a bill that would exempt religious institutions from Obama’s contraception mandate:
Republicans in swing districts are particularly eager to defer votes, which they fear could be used to portray them as opponents of reproductive health care for women.
Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said, “We should keep our focus on economic growth and jobs, instead of getting sidetracked by issues that divide us.”
Representative Tom Reed, Republican of New York, disagrees with the president’s policy. But he said: “We have clearly staked out our opposition to it. It’s time to move on to other issues, like jobs and the economy.” [emphasis added]
Republicans control the House schedule and could bring legislation to the floor at any time if they agreed on a proposal and saw political benefits in pressing the issue.
By a vote of 51 to 48, the Senate recently upheld President Obama’s birth control policy and turned back Republican efforts to let employers and health insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives and other items to which they object on religious or moral grounds.
Republican senators tried to frame the issue as a matter of conscience rather than contraception, while Democrats cited the proposal as evidence of a Republican war against women — a theme echoed on the Senate floor on Thursday as Democrats urged swift passage of a separate bill to fight domestic violence.
The 12 Democratic women in the Senate tried to turn up the heat on Mr. Boehner. In a letter, they asked him to “abandon the promise” he had made to bring legislation to the House floor overriding Mr. Obama’s birth control policy. In a Twitter message on Thursday, Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, invited Americans to sign an online petition urging the speaker to “stop the attacks on women and birth control.”
Several House Republicans, mindful of the political risks, said that Roman Catholic bishops needed to do more to educate and mobilize the public.
Alissa writes:
Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said, “We should keep our focus on economic growth and jobs, instead of getting sidetracked by issues that divide us.”
Fiscal issues divide people as well. We have capitalists, socialists and other groups. Whenever people call themselves “moderates” and say to not focus on “divisive social issues”, what they really mean is “Hush, don’t rock the boat. Everybody sing the praises of social liberalism.” Why is it everytime that cultural liberals do something nobody bats an eyelash but whenever cultural conservatives do something suddenly it’s “divisive”? It’s not a mistake.
David S. writes:
A war against women being fought by granting them more freedoms, and fighting laws which would limit those freedoms…
I’m not familiar with that type of warfare. Perhaps we should try that against the terrorists too.
Jesse Powell writes:
Laura Wood wrote:
“They should point to what feminist values have brought to women: unwed motherhood, divorce, slavery to unsatisfying jobs, high rates of breast cancer, infertility, and sexual disease; demographic decline and children who are unhealthy, neglected and depressed.”
In response to David S., Laura has listed for you the many pathologies that have obviously increased in the aftermath of “women’s liberation.” Are you seriously going to dispute the list of harms that Laura mentions?
These harms are ultimately caused by men abandoning their duties towards women. The harm of “women’s liberation” to women is the result of men’s abandonment of the family role both when the woman in question is growing up as a girl and after the woman becomes an adult and operates as a woman. It needs to be remembered that women are children first before they become women; that harm against children is also harm against women.
When a man says to a woman “you are free” he is at the same time saying “you are on your own.” Women’s liberation equals male abandonment. From the man’s point of view the purpose of liberating women is precisely to enable and justify abandoning women.
In the natural patriarchal order, men invest in women and women invest in children. This allows the child’s needs to be met, the woman’s needs to be met, and the man’s psychological needs to be met. If the woman breaks the contract by declaring “I am free” the man no longer has a reason or a motivation to invest in the woman. If the woman takes care of herself then the man taking care of the woman is pointless and redundant. If the woman is willful and disobedient then the man’s investment in the woman will be squandered. Either way, women’s independence destroys the man’s motivation to invest in the woman. This is why women’s liberation equals male abandonment.
Men’s abandonment of women equals women’s abandonment of children. When adults steal resources and time from children by not fully investing in children’s welfare this leads to an ongoing process of intergenerational deterioration. This is why in terms of family indicators the next generation is always worse off than the prior generation.
David S. quips “A war against women being fought by granting them more freedoms”? Yes David S., feminist men are indeed in a war against women and the strategy of this war against women is precisely the male abandonment of women facilitated and justified by “granting [women] more freedoms.”
