I wish I could accuse Rep. Akin of being "fringey" or out of step. But he's not. America and the Republican Party are full of people who "believe" the same way he does. They do not "think" the same way, because there is little or no "thinking" involved. Thinking requires use of a muscle that is sadly atrophied in this link in human evolution.
And then there's Rep. Akin's spiritual brother in Idaho, state Rep. Winder, who thinks women just aren't sure if they know when they are raped. And, he's got a bill that will apparently take care of that by forcing women who choose to have a legal abortion to undergo not ONE but TWO medically unnecessary ultrasounds.
I can't ID all the individuals. Let's cut to it: The GOP platform opposes abortion in every case, with no exceptions. It'll be voted on in a few days and it'll pass. It has every year since at least 1976.
Don't act shocked at their lack of information. They are not interested in information, especially information about (A) sex and/or (B) women. Science is a threat to their faith and sex is a dirty thing that slutty women tempt men with to steal their souls. (Until they get married, then sex is their right as husbands.)
Pregnancy is what women deserve for having sex, which is convenient because that also means they can oppose any insurance coverage for birth control. To these neanderthals, women aren't allowed to have sex unless they are making children, and a woman exercising sexual freedom is more offensive than a Mapplethorpe photo expo.
Have you ever noticed that condoms can be bought over the counter, but there is not one form of female birth control that is available without a prescription? Not one.
Their attitude toward women is steeped in the objectification and hatred of women that is more cultural than theological, but it is justified by scripture. Since those bearded guys put quill to paper and decided to blame the fall of man on that amoral sex-kitten Eve, it has been this way. Women are talked about and subjected to male authority as if they are morally weak, untrustworthy temptresses that are determined to ruin well-meaning men who are just trying to get through the day without slipping and having their sacred penises accidentally fall into some cleverly positioned whores.
When one of these low-brows gets married, his wife is elevated from slutty temptress to useful tool and vessel. She is sex, socks and succotash. A uterus (and a vagina) that does the laundry and cooks the food. "Thag hungry. Thag horny. Thag want sons." (No way these knuckle-draggers are getting Above their Raisin' in this lifetime.)
Am I being too personal in my criticism? Is name-calling childish? Maybe. But it's infuriating to be talked about like I'm not in the room by men who (1) are completely full of crap, (2) genuinely believe these idiotic, mythological things about lady-parts, and (3) are also convinced that they have the microphone in their hands (not a euphemism) because God put it there. They believe they have moral authority because God placed them in leadership.
If you are reading this and thinking that I've gone too far, ask yourself this: IF THESE MEN THINK THAT WOMEN ARE MORE THAN AMORAL, UNINTELLIGENT VESSELS FOR SEX AND BREEDING, THEN WHY CAN'T WE BE TRUSTED TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS ABOUT OUR OWN BODIES?
If you are reading this and you (mostly) agree with me, then get out and vote in November, and show these Legitimate Apes where government authority comes from in a free democratic republic. It's not from God. It's from the majority.
In this country, that's a 51% majority of really pissed off sluts!
PS Based on comments, let me clarify that I do not think all Rupublican men are equal to these bafoons featured in this article. I assumed people would realize that. Not everyone did. Nevertheless, a patriarchal policy that demeans women by controlling their bodies? Kinda cavemanish IMO.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs your polar opposite in all things except intelligence level... :) May I submit that I don't know personally, ANYONE, who fits this description? To me, the issue is about protecting the rights of people who cannot protect themselves. Whether that's a fetus, or a woman facing a difficult decision alone. A lively debate can beheld regarding definitions of life, or the appropriate way to serve a female of any age. I am open to those debates, but getting lumped in with some guy who has no credibility or place in the debate just because my opinions may differ from yours isn't right. Akin does not speak for me. This post is cleverly written but does nothing to further the debate or encourage reasonable discourse. Do better Raisin! Much love, your oldest arch conservative friend -Topdunn
ReplyDeleteTopDunn,
ReplyDeleteA debate about the definitions of life would be nice. But that's not the debate going on in this country. The debate in this country is whether or not to give rights to a fertilized egg that supersede those of the person in whose body that zygote exists.
If a woman chooses to allow the rights of a fetus in her body to override her own, that is her choice. My point: the government does not have that right. A zygote is not a "person": not legally, not scientifically, and in no other way than religiously. (And religious justification is, IMO, insufficient on its own to disctate laws in this country.)
That changes as the fetus devlops, obviously. I am not advocating voluntary late-term abortion. I am not even advocating abortion, per se. I am advocating a position that regards women with the same respect and regard as men grant each other.
The Catholic Church regards maturbation as a sin because they see sperm as "potential life." Yet no Cathiolic leaders I know are advocating a constitutional amendment outlawing that activity.
If a zygote has the same legal rights as the woman in whom it exists, then there can be no "choice" to terminate for an ectopic pregnancy or other threats to life. You may think that sounds silly. Most people would ask, "Why should they both die when the woman can be saved?" The answer is this: Because once equal rights are granted, no one may make that choice. Not even a man. To suggest that such a choie is possible is to acknowledge that they do not have equal rights. And if they do not have equal rights, then efforts to outlaw abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy is no more than a deprivation of womens' rights.
Right now, a woman can make that choice to sacrifice her life for her potential, yet-undeveloped child (an issue I know you are all too familiar with) and I know of no one who would not respect that choice, even admire it. But taking that choice away is not admirable. It is insulting.
These men referenced in my blog discuss women as objects, so of course I feel objectified. And that pisses me off.
Moreover, having the sense to know that "rape is rape" doesn't change the fact that these men are seeking to regulate women's bodies. And I presume, based on your post, that you would be in favor of this regulation.
A woman is not just a vessel for reproduction to be regulated like a brood mare. To suggest that constitutional amendments and laws are needed to regulate women's bodies against their wills suggests that women are incapable of doing that on their own. It suggests that women are amoral and unintelligent.
The point of my blog, TopDunn, is that all this arcane, misogynistic rhetoric makes me feel like that's how they view women. And as great a person as you are, your chastisement has done nothing to alter my view.
For a party that touts Ayn Rand and rugged individualism, it is stunning to see this campaign to deprive women of their rights as individuals.
Again, I'm not advocating laws that result in more abortions. I advocate policies that lead to fewer abortions without stripping women of their rights and dignity as human beings.
I can support a number of policies that would reduce abortions: better sex ed on preventing pregnancy, including but not limited to abstinence; more access to effective birth control (not less!); liberalizing adoption laws for same-sex couples so more kids have two-parent homes; a higher minimum wage so that low-earners can afford more kids.
Unfortunately, I find that a lot of pro-lifers oppose these policies as well. Too bad. If we could find common ground on some of these issues, we really could reduce abortions and leave women's bodies free from government control.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Actually I agree with you, mostly. And that's MY point. I think that guy (I don't even want to know his name) is way passed fringey and out of step: he's a loon.
ReplyDeleteMy problems start with the form of public discourse. For new thing a public debate begins too often with people like Bill Mahr or Rush Limbaugh. Both LOONS, who are more interested in selling something than honest discussions. As citizens we should expect open, honest and direct discourse from our leaders and potential leaders and from one another. Please don't see yourself as "chastised" by lowly me :) I subscribe to your blog because I know personally that you are bright, principled, passionate and that you come at things from a different point of view than I do pretty much all the time (grin). I want to know what you think we ought to do. My mission was simply to get you to write about solutions instead of more vitriol. I love your response even if I don't agree with 100% of it because you get to the meat of it. ROCK ON. -Jody
Jody,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Akin is a loon, but I have to disagree with you that he is outside the norm. The GOP platform seeks to grant full legal rights to a fertilized egg and outlaw all abortions, no exceptions. That, IMO, is as loony as Akin. It is a relief that there is no seciton on "legitimate" or "honest" rape in the platform, but I heard that stuff about rape victims not getting pregnant when I was growing up. It's part of the propaganda.
There are many of us who are rational and reasonable (most of the time haha) and could find common ground. Unfortunately, folks like us do not seem to be in charge right now.