The Conservative War On Women

KingGorilla wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I wonder if, at the time, anyone noticed all of those were good arguments that only women should vote and men should be disallowed the vote.

I saw that episode of Star Trek, it was weird.

But I bet Kirk still got some nookie.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I wonder if, at the time, anyone noticed all of those were good arguments that only women should vote and men should be disallowed the vote.

Yeah, vote NO, we must not allow trouser rule!

Jayhawker wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I wonder if, at the time, anyone noticed all of those were good arguments that only women should vote and men should be disallowed the vote.

I saw that episode of Star Trek, it was weird.

But I bet Kirk still got some nookie.

Riker did, Kirk was still stuck in the Nexus at the time.

IMAGE(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/29353_4815608197190_1263671512_n.jpg)

Does Ryan count as defeated? He did win his congressional race, didn't he? Or was that a post election nightmare?

Demosthenes wrote:

Does Ryan count as defeated? He did win his congressional race, didn't he? Or was that a post election nightmare?

Well, he's not currently Vice President-Elect, so he was defeated at something, anyway. (Took me a sec the first time I read it to realize).

It's a good thing there's a network to defend Christian men. They'd be screwed without it.

I can't believe that's a real thing. It's surreal.

I feel dirty for reading that. I thought it was a joke, at first, and then I thought about Poe's Law, and then just realized (about the time he started talking about blacks on welfare) that yes, it was serious, and yes, he meant every word.

Note that the War on Women is exceptionally clear in that little rant. That man despises women. They're not equal to him, they are utterly inferior, can't be trusted, and are totally driven by hormones. The sluts need to be punished, which is why this fellow is "pro-life", no matter what he may otherwise say.

I'll preserve his closing paragraph for posterity, because I think he probably won't leave that lovely little essay up for very long:

However, this election cycle shows that the Slut Vote is real, and Republicans lose because they discount the existence of original sin in women. Abortion is often called the “third rail of American politics,” but in truth, the third rail is a woman’s right to slut (with cash and prizes).

It's unusual to see the Punish Sluts argument so prominently displayed, but it's basically always there, with any anti-abortionist.

The post was already scrubbed when he made the blog private (password protected) but a Google Cache was already made. So if you want to preserve it, mirror it somewhere as I don't know how long Google Cache lasts.

What a sad, scared man. Someone should've given him more hugs a long time ago.

Tempted to unleash that on extreme religious family members as "this is what I hear you saying when you go off the deep end. You may not actually say exactly this, but this is the subtext I hear behind your insanity".

LarryC wrote:

I can't believe that's a real thing. It's surreal.

And now you finally understand why you are often so wrong about American politics. You're simply insulated from how batf*ck crazy our political sphere can become.

...I envy you. Honestly.

[edit]And also, please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here; you're a smart and insightful guy. I'm not bashing your intelligence or anything; just pointing out why when you join in debates regarding our political system, sometimes there's frustration with how you're missing the point - because sometimes you really are because you don't see what we do.

I can appreciate that a lot more fully now. I used to think that that kind of crazy was an isolated thing. Our local media has a bad habit of sensationalizing the weirdest crap like it was normal. Guess I was projecting that over without thinking.

Man. I feel for you guys.

SixteenBlue wrote:

It's a good thing there's a network to defend Christian men. They'd be screwed without it.

The comments to that article are beyond belief. Like, bad even for being a comments section. People thinking they're talking rationally and intellectually about made up, hateful bullcrap that they parrot back to each other. Holy crap.

LarryC wrote:

I can appreciate that a lot more fully now. I used to think that that kind of crazy was an isolated thing. Our local media has a bad habit of sensationalizing the weirdest crap like it was normal. Guess I was projecting that over without thinking.

Man. I feel for you guys.

Well, you're not incorrect about media sensationalization; that's certainly an issue here too.

Women want to delay marriage as long as possible so they can “have it all,” and usually “have it all” means “have as much hot alpha sex as possible without any consequences.”

...

Women are pure, perfect, kind, and altruistic, and the only reason they “get into trouble” is that some evil, conniving, manipulative man tricked them into sleeping with the entire football team.

Twice.

+++++

Why does this make me think the whole thing is about how no one wants to have "hot alpha sex" (whatever that means) with him?

Sounds like the fable of the Right Wing Nice Guy and the Slutty Grapes.

I would like to meet these women who want to "have as much hot alpha sex as possible without any consequences.”

Because... err... science.

Ah, the suspicion that everyone but you is having hot, wild, consequence-free sex.

Sometimes I get the feeling that I'm the only one having hot, wild, consequence-free sex.

Yeah, I can't understand how a platform supposedly promising more women having more sex with more men turned out to not be popular with, you know, men.

and he thinks women are the irrational voters...

LarryC wrote:

Sometimes I get the feeling that I'm the only one having hot, wild, consequence-free sex.

There's probably at least one other person.

When I run into Republicans who say "why won't sluts vote for the GOP?", I am reminded of that scene in the movie Boomerang in which Martin Lawrence asks "Why don't bitches ever do that to me?" and Eddie Murphy responds "Maybe it is because you call them bitches.".

Author confesses to be a monarchist in the comments.

Indeed. I am a monarchist chiefly because of this. Monarchy is not perfect, but most people throughout history have had more freedom under monarchs than they do today under “liberal” democracies. In the Anglo-Saxon West, in particular, the history of monarchy included things like the right to jury trial, and the right to redress of grievances, representation by local elders (the Moot), and the supreme rule of law (read a book about the guy featured in my banner). This was 1,000 years before the Enlightment allegedly created an entirely new and utopian world.

The major benefit of monarchy is the monarch knows he has to hand his country to his children, and this means his time horizon is much longer than what happens in the next four years.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Author confesses to be a monarchist in the comments.

Indeed. I am a monarchist chiefly because of this. Monarchy is not perfect, but most people throughout history have had more freedom under monarchs than they do today under “liberal” democracies. In the Anglo-Saxon West, in particular, the history of monarchy included things like the right to jury trial, and the right to redress of grievances, representation by local elders (the Moot), and the supreme rule of law (read a book about the guy featured in my banner). This was 1,000 years before the Enlightment allegedly created an entirely new and utopian world.

The major benefit of monarchy is the monarch knows he has to hand his country to his children, and this means his time horizon is much longer than what happens in the next four years.

What freedom is he lacking? The freedom to punish sluts?

SixteenBlue wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Author confesses to be a monarchist in the comments.

Indeed. I am a monarchist chiefly because of this. Monarchy is not perfect, but most people throughout history have had more freedom under monarchs than they do today under “liberal” democracies. In the Anglo-Saxon West, in particular, the history of monarchy included things like the right to jury trial, and the right to redress of grievances, representation by local elders (the Moot), and the supreme rule of law (read a book about the guy featured in my banner). This was 1,000 years before the Enlightment allegedly created an entirely new and utopian world.

The major benefit of monarchy is the monarch knows he has to hand his country to his children, and this means his time horizon is much longer than what happens in the next four years.

What freedom is he lacking? The freedom to punish sluts?

Prima Nocte

For a guy who seems to love the Magna Carta so much he seems blissfully unaware that it's the most famous compromise document in politics.

Malor wrote:

It's unusual to see the Punish Sluts argument so prominently displayed, but it's basically always there, with any anti-abortionist.

For the record, I'll continue to assert that while some may be pro-life for this reason, most are not, so painting with the above broad brush does not help build credibility. From my experience, most pro-lifers are pro-life because they think abortion is wrong. I agree that many are also anti-premarital sex because they're conservative people who also believe that behavior is wrong, but I have never known a pro-lifer in real life who was pro-life because they wanted to control women, either blatantly or indirectly.

So, when I read things like the quote above, all I think is that this doesn't match what I know, so I see it as something written by someone who simply doesn't like pro-lifers and wishes to attribute more negative things to them.

There's probably at least one other person.

Mex!

Crispus wrote:

I have never known a pro-lifer in real life who was pro-life because they wanted to control women, either blatantly or indirectly.

It's implicit in the argument. If you're telling a woman what she may or may not do with her own body and her own life you explicitly want the government to exert control over them by removing their right of choice. The same way you want the government to exert control over murderers or thieves or tax evaders by enacting laws that constrain and/or punish their behaviour.

You can't say you want to stop women doing something but equally don't want to control them. The stopping the the thing is an act of control.