Hola amigos. It's been a while since I've blogged at ya, but things have been busy here in Brother Bobland lately. Getting laid off two weeks ago has strangely left me busier than ever, between trawling for jobs and interviewing and knocking out the many household maintenance and improvement projects needed in preparation for January's expected arrival of Baby Bob. So I started writing a piece a few weeks ago that I never got around to finishing. While the debates and our president's spectacular foreign policy failures have been dominating deadlines it's important not to overlook some of the smaller news items that are part of the big picture.
A few weeks ago a story bubbled up on the web and twitter about what Mark Stein would have referred to as the Obama Campaign's latest exploding cigar. It seems that the official White House Tumblr page had a rather obnoxious e-card that was soon afterward removed from its site:
Obama's campaign missteps generally get ignored by the mainstream media because 1) They happen so often and 2) They're being done by a Democrat. Not quite on the level of “You didn't build that”, this was a minor mistake more on the level of “The Life of Julia”. Objectifying women as walking “lady parts” certainly wasn't as newsworthy as the debate results and the left's showing what it's made of by focusing on a gigantic yellow puppet in hopes of salvaging that debacle. But there is an underlying message behind this minor event that makes a much bigger statement about the left.
I had written previously how according to the left waging a “War on Women” is demonstrated by not supporting women being dependent on the government while encouraging them to spread sexually transmitted diseases. Looking at the latest misfire, aside from its juvenile silliness, shows the larger problem of how the left objectifies women, along with all of the identity groups it courts. When it comes to women the left fixates so heavily on abortion and birth control, it sends the phenomenally insulting message that women should not concern themselves with issues beyond that. Blogger Gabriella Hoffman does a great takedown of how the Democrats reduce women to sex objects:
The question beckons: Should women vote with their brains or their lady parts? If the latter best resonates with our gender, then they might want to reevaluate their priorities.
Much like their radical feminist supporters, many Democrats think that government-subsidized birth control is the only issue concerning women.
The Left, with the Democrat Party claiming to be the party of women, ironically has hurt women the most. CNSNews.com reported in July that 780,000 more women are unemployed since Obama took office in 2008. . . .
It applies across all of the gender / racial characters that the left pigeon holes:
- If you're gay and don't align yourself with the party that supports laws that endorse teaching gay marriage to young students and forcing Catholic adoption centers to close you are a sell out
- If you are Hispanic and don't align with a crowd that supports no border security and ignoring efforts to expel those who are illegally you you've betrayed your people.
- If you're black, standing up in righteous anger over an interracial crime against a black man is good. But you also have to ignore incidents of black on black crime, and you have to also endorse an educational system that ensures that your children remain trapped in failing schools. Black conservatives get the worst of the left's venom.
- And women? If you have the nerve and gall to differ from the leftist doctrine as to when life starts, well then you're not even a woman. And I thought it was conservatives who had trouble with science?
This also points out to a strange paradox of the left. The same people who preach diversity and multiculturalism only open the door to gay leftists, Hispanic leftists, black leftists, female leftists, and even to white, male heterosexual leftists. But if your beliefs vary from them you are no longer part of your identity group. To the left diversity only applies at the most superficial levels, where conservatives generally will judge the person on the merit of t
heir actions and capabilities. If you don't believe me look no further than how the media treated Herman Cain versus Barack Obama. Neither one is qualified to be president. Before the flames start, I was and still am a huge fan of Cain. I was grateful to see someone manage to pull economics to the front of the debates during the primaries. That said, you have to have an answer other than 9-9-9 to foreign policy questions. I'd love to see Cain as Secretary of the Treasury in a Romney administration though. I'm pretty sure he passes the basic skill test of being able to handle Turbo Tax.
Back on topic, look at how both have been treated by the press. I can probably count on two hands the number of times I heard the mainstream press not lead off a news story by introducing Cain as “Pizza Man…” While yes, this was his most famous accomplishment, why not go with a more accurate title of “Business Man”? Cain has some great accomplishments under his belt of turning around under performing companies. By contrast, how many times did you hear the president get prefaced as “Community Organizer” (code for racist), or more accurately, “Unaccomplished Parasite”?
The sad reality is that the left needs this divisiveness to hold onto power. They've seen union might eroding over the last few decades. Hispanics did not evolve into a racist voting block that can be counted on to vote around 90% for a presidential candidate that shares their racial background. The left needs to wall off these demographics and do everything that they can to preserve those bases. The ones who venture out have to be destroyed if they should start to ascend to power. Note the vitriol that gets sent toward the Palins, Cains, Backmans, and Clarence Thomases in America.
Back in 2008 President Obama ran on a platform of unifying this country, but this administration seems to have nothing more than fear, anger, and resentment. It started with the professional leftists launching the Occupy Wall Street movement to create a phony class warfare story for the press to use to distract from the president's mishandling of our economy. We saw the need to “punish your enemies” or how “they're gonna put y'all back in chains”. As for Women, Mark Steyn summed it up yesterday:
As the president says , women are not an interest group. No, sir, they're several interest groups, and one can't but admire the generational thoroughness of the Democratic campaign with their precisely targeted advertising: Barack Obama will satisfy your lady parts , deflower your daughter , turn your grade-schooler into a glassy-eyed Kim Jong Il extra , and get gran'ma mouthing like a gangsta ho .
What, nothing for the horny-cougar demographic?
Personally, I don't see how every woman is not insulted at how condescending and intellectually shallow the efforts to target their vote have been. Apparently objecting to paying for your abortions or birth control is the equivalent of a ban to this administration. No word if the lefties are ready to self identify as Prohibitionists for failing to pick up my bar tab. Not supporting laws whose only real purpose is to extend deadlines for lawsuits by trial lawyers equals not supporting equal pay for women. The worst part of this is the unspoken message that girls shouldn't be bothered to worry about manly issues like the economy, foreign policy or energy. Apparently women aren't smart enough to think with anything but their lady parts when they vote. It almost sounds like the left is objectifying women as nothing more than giant walking vaginas. But that's just crazy talk, right?
And if we take the left's thinking to its logical conclusion the only people who are qualified to relate on major issues are… older white men. Personally, I can't get behind that kind of bigoted thinking.
Cross Posted from Brother Bob's Blog
Ever wonder why Obama might be “Objectifying women as walking “lady parts?”
He got that from Islam.
(Not saying HE’s Muslim, just exposed to its teaching at an impressionable age.)
One’s Nakedness (Awra) must be covered by all women over the age of puberty (or nine, whichever comes earlier).
The Awra of a woman consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet.
Hadith: Radd al-Muhtar, 1/405
Also, care should be taken that no part from above the wrists and ankles is exposed.
With regards to the area below the chin, it should be remembered that the limit of the face in length starts from the point where the hairline usually begins to the bottom of the chin, and in breadth the portion between the two earlobes. Hadith: Maraqi al-Falah, P. 58
To cover one’s Awra (“Nakedness”) is a general obligation, even when alone.
Some Muslim scholars go further:
A woman’s Awra (Nakedness) consists of her whole body except her face, hands and feet. However, she will be prevented from exposing her face in amongst men due to the fear of temptation (fitna).
Ibn Abidin states: (A young woman will be prevented from exposing her face), not because it is part of Awra, rather (for the fear of temptation). (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/406).
This is why mere eye slits or embroidered little eye panels are so common in female covers.
There is another strong opinion, that feet are part of Awra (Nakedness), and must be covered. As such, legally, one will not be sinful for exposing them, but it would be advisable as a precautionary measure to cover them.
Many women wear veils, Burqas and Jilbabs that normally cover the ankles, but reveal the leg area above this while walking (especially in the wind, sitting and coming out of a car, etc), thus they commit the sin of exposing What is considered Awra (Nakedness)according to all.
Therefore the importance of covering the feet. Covering the feet is just as important as covering the face if not more.
Understanding Islamic teaching regarding females as one big vagina helps us understand why Democrats and Liberals objectify them so often, as they did with that postcard and the Julia concept.
Actually, it is the women who are taking a major part in the Romney effort here in northern El Paso County, CO. They are tireless, dedicated and very good at dealing with voters. We are down to the last 70+ voters in our precincts and they will be encouraged personally to vote. I am actually driving many to the polls on Tuesday. Do not underestimate a woman when she is protecting her home and loved ones!
A patronizing attitude is most often unconscious.
Hi Brother Bob,
The contraception mandate wasn’t an evil idea hatched by Obama and Sibelius to stick it to the Catholic church. It was the unanimous recommendation of all 12 doctors on the (non-partisan, independent, non-government) Institutes of Medicine panel which considered the issue after extensive review of research data over more than a 6 month period. So Obama simply followed this recommendation.
Why is contraceptive coverage important? There was a recent Washington University study. They made available “bullet-proof” contraceptive methods – IUDs and depot/long lasting contraceptive hormones (one shot good for many months; don’t have to remember to take pills). This was a study of 10,000 women in St. Louis, 50% of whom were African Americans. The results were spectacular: 1/6th the level of teenage pregnancies; 1/5th the rate of abortions. The effect was sufficiently great that the overall rate of abortions in the entire metropolitan St. Louis area went down, compared to that in the similar Kansas City area and in the rest of the state of Missouri, where the abortion rates went up during the same period of time. The abortion rate for this group of women (which typically has a very high abortion rate), went down to a level far below that of middle class white women.
Both IUDs and depot/long lasting contraceptive hormone injections are expensive. That’s why they need to be covered by insurance.
To address another issue, it’s not an abridgement of religious freedom at all. What is being mandated is not that employers provide plans with contraceptive coverage. All that’s being mandated is that insurance companies are mandated to enter into purely private, third party contracts to provide a rider to existing insurance policies. This is a private contract between the insurance company and the employee, which doesn’t even involve the employer and for which the employer is not required to pay one nickle.
If we are serious about wanting to actually prevent abortions, the way to do it is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, because 40% of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion. 50% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of failure of contraceptives, in people who are using contraceptives — which is why it is so important for many women to use “bullet-proof” (99% + effective) contraceptive measures. These bullet-proof measures are expensive, which is why they need to be covered by insurance — which more than pays for itself, because the cost of the contraceptives is much less than the cost of unwanted pregnancies.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry – good to see you again! I actually agree with most of your premise, and my question is why not encourage condom use? None of the methods you mentioned do anything to prevent the spread of disease. Check my original take on this subject:
http://brother-bobs-blog.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-do-liberals-hate-women.html
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
What your cited survey, which is questioned by some St. Louis OB-GYNs, doesn’t state is that the number of STIs (sexually transmitted infections) has seen a spike in St. Louis during the period of the study, according to CDC reports. Funny thing about those STIs, Larry, they also required medical treatment, an in the case of HIV/AIDs, can be a death sentence. Pregnancy is not a death sentence.
“The study also specifically addressed that it simulated the Institute of Medicine’s recommendatin that eight primary preventive health services for women be covered free under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The study found that “providing no-cost contraception and promoting the use of highly effectrive contraceptive methods have the potential to reduce unintended pregnancies in the United States.”
However, a 2012 Survey by Reimbursement Intelligence, a health insurance industry consulting firm, showed that none of the 15 companies surveyed felt the HHS health care mandate would resut in a net cost savings by preventing unintended pregnancies.”
You said:
“50% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of a failure of contraceptives.” A major fail on your attempt to spin actuality. The Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood, states:
reasons for abortion:
contraceptive failed despite proper use – 16.9%
Birth control pills don’t work if you don’t take them as prescribed. Other contraceptive methods also don’t work if not used properly.
So, Larry, do you personally support abortion upon demand?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: The issue here Larry in case you missed it is the mandatory requirement for all employeers. That violates the 1st Ammendment. I know the Constitution doesn’t matter much to you lefties, but it is still the law of the land!
Nan Indonesia had beaches filled with women in bathing suits you ought to go sometime and see
Try Bali. and Bob. Thanks for telling women how to think they sure are dumb!
@John: For the record I fully support every woman’s right to think of herself as a walking vagina! I just don’t think that they should be told that they should think of themselves that way =8^)
@Brother Bob:
How insulting women should find the Democrat opinion that women are nothing more than the sum of their sexual/reproductive body parts. It is an archaic, chauvinistic philosophy that assumes the only concerns women have are their ability to get laid without repercussions. So obviously, Democrats think that women are not worried about the double cost of putting gas in their vehicles in order to go to work, or putting that gas in their cars to go look for work if they are out of a job. Women are not concerned that groceries are approx. 20% higher than they were four years ago, their electric/heating bills have skyrocketed (as Obama promised), their health insurance premiums have increased and job security in the private sector is a thing of the past, according to the Democrats. No, no, no, the only important thing to women, according to the Democrats, is the ability to have irresponsible sex.
It is beyond my comprehension how any woman in America can vote Democrat with that DNC platform.
@John:
Had friends there during the tsunami clean-up.
Yes, at TOURIST pools and hotel-owned beaches foreign women can wear bathing suits while swimming.
But even in those places the Indonesian tourist board says:
If on holiday, casual clothes such as open-necked shirts and trousers or shorts for men and modest t-shirts, skirts and dresses for women are perfectly acceptable.
Bathing suit and swimwear are only suitable to wear in and around beaches and swimming pools.Women swimwear and bikini are best covered from hips with sarong when coming out from water and strolling around the beach.
And for women who take jobs in business there that board says this:
Business attire is generally conservative. Women should dress conservatively ensuring that they are well covered from ankle to neck.
Aceh is now under full Shariah.
Bali still has places foreign women can go without wearing full coverings.
Hi Retire,
Just for once, can we have a civil conversation? I’ll respect your point of view, without accusing you of being some sort of lesser species of human being and you’ll do the same for me. I stipulate that, in your heart of hearts, you believe in your point of view. You may be wrong, but it’s not out of some sort of intentional evil. You stipulate the same for me.
To answer your direct question, no, I do not support abortion on demand!
With respect to the claim that increased access to contraception increases STDs, this has never been shown or suggested, in any peer-reviewed medical publication of which I have knowledge. If you know of such a study, it would be useful for you to bring this to my/our attention.
St. Louis, Missouri, has the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of STDs in the nation. It’s been this way for a long time. The vast majority of this high rate is in the homosexual population, which is, presumably, not affected in the least by programs to increase the availability of contraception. As a result of this fact, there have been, in recent years, major programs to increase screening for sexually transmitted diseases. This accounts for whatever increase there has been in STD rates, which are entirely marginal. e.g.
With respect to the fact that 16.9 per cent of abortions are owing to contraceptive failure despite proper use, this underscores the importance of utilizing bullet-proof (99% + effective) contraceptive measures, the best of which are implantable depot hormones, which cost $600 to $1000. The Washington University (St. Louis) study proved that, when bullet proof contraceptive methods are offered to women with high rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion and sexually transmitted disease, 75% of women opt for bullet proof contraceptive measures, which lead to a stunningly low (unprecedented) rate of teenage pregnancies and abortions.
With regard to the contraceptive mandate paying for itself, you quote a survey which simply states the opinion of insurance companies that the mandate won’t pay for itself. To my knowledge, this is based entirely on a single cost evaluation, by a single insurance company.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/01/five-facts-about-the-health-laws-contraceptive-mandate/
For group policies, this is the estimated increased cost:
$40.32 per year per insured.
For individual policies, this is the estimated increased cost:
$21.72 per year per insured.
Now, you (Retire05) have raised several issues:
You claim that free bullet proof contraception increases the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. But there is no proof whatsoever for this. Not even the suggestion for this.
You asked me if I support abortion on demand. I answered NO. I ask you several questions in return:
Do you consider contraception to be an evil equal to abortion?
Do you favor abortion as an alternative to a woman developing chlamydia?
Do you favor abortion as an alternative to a woman developing syphilis?
Do you favor abortion as an alternative to a woman developing HIV?
When you give me the same direct answer to my questions as I gave to yours, then I’d like to continue this dialog.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You want to have a “civil” conversation with me, then go on to state that I am wrong, just not intentionally evil? You really are a hypocrite, aren’t you?
Now, you want to attribute the high rate of STIs in St. Louis to the gay community. Unfortunately, St. Louis pales in comparison to San Francisco, Austin or Houston, in respect to the size of the gay community in those cities. Yet, the STI rate in those cities are less per 100,000 compared to St. Louis. Guess that destroys that argument for you. Oooops.
Then you reference that the survey I quote was based on ONE insurance company. Read much, Larry? I clearly stated it was 15 companies.
Why do you ask if I favor abortion over any of the STDs you named? Are you going to try to tell me that an abortion will cure a woman of HIV/AIDs or syphilis? Or that the CDC did not say in last year’s report on STDs
“most cases of congenital syphilis are easily preventable if women are screened for syphilis and treated early during prenatal care”
So if STDs, including HIV/AIDs can be treated while a woman is pregnant, why would I favor her murdering her unborn child? And why would I support abortion when women are too damn stupid/lazy to use birth control properly? Do you think that taxpayers should be on the hook to pay for my hang over remedies if I drink too much the night before?
So, let me ask you this: do you support abortion laws as they now stand? Do you support women having the right to murder their unborn child if their life is not in peril? Where are those two little words that liberals are so alergic to; personal responsibility?
As to the way I converse with you? I consider you an enemy of the nation I love, so why would I be any different toward you?