Democrats walking into “war on women” trap of their own making

Loading

Ed Morrissey @ Hot Air:

Do Democrats still plan to feature a “war on women” theme at their convention?  If they do, I argue in my column today for The Fiscal Times, they may well find themselves hoist with their own petard, after a week of watching accomplished Republican women speaking from the dais in Tampa.  Not only does the emphasis entirely miss the issues about which voters care most in this electoral cycle, the entire argument diminishes women to, well, to exactly what Code Pink reduced them in protests at the GOP convention:

The message from the Obama campaign and Democrats in general seems to be that women are somehow incapable of finding birth control on their own unless some paternal entity dispenses it to them, despite all evidence to the contrary.  They’re so incapable of this task that employers and schools have to hand it for them, no matter how much income they derive nor how much tuition they manage to pay otherwise.  This has already backfired during Team Obama’s “Life of Julia” campaign, which offered a creepy, solitary vision of a woman’s life approaching that of the song “Eleanor Rigby.”  Former CNN news anchor Campbell Brown wrote in The New York Times  that “Julia” was “a silly and embarrassing caricature based on the assumption that women look to government at every meaningful phase of their lives for help.”

But it’s even worse than that.  The strategy segregates women from other issues as if they only have deep concern in this election over the status of their genitalia.  This theme came to ludicrous fruition in demonstrations by Code Pink at the Republican convention in Tampa, when activists showed up dressed as gigantic labia.  The scene provided an unintentionally revealing portrait of just how progressives see women in modern American society.

That is the true risk for Democrats who pursue this strategy.  After three nights of watching successful and accomplished women in the Republican Party discuss economic policy, job creation, and reform of the federal government for deficit and debt reduction, viewers will tune in the following week to see women considered as interested in little more than sexual reproduction.  Voters might well conclude that there is a “war on women,” but that it’s not the Republicans who are waging it.

Here’s a case in point — the HHS contraception mandate that Democrats will be hailing as liberation for women in the workplace and in universities.  Sandra Fluke is already scheduled to deliver a major speech at the convention on this topic.  But contraception isn’t difficult to find, nor is it expensive to purchase on an individual basis.  Almost six months ago, US News researched the individual cost of contraception for all of the options — and found that nearly all of them fell between $150 and $600 per year.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The photo linked at Hot Air reminded me that, in much of modern Islam, the entirety of a woman is considered a sexual organ.
Therefore she must be completely covered in order to be decent.
We are seeing the reversion of dress in Muslim women in what were once freer societies.
In Northern Africa even in the hottest Saharan Desert, they must completely cover rather than wear their traditional and much cooler clothing.
In Egypt women used to freely dress in western styles, but now even fully covered females are sexually assaulted for being out without a big strong male guardian.
In Iran women are cracked down on every year for wearing too tight of coats in summer.
Code Pink ought to try dressing up like that during the Jummah in the 1st day of the DNC convention.
That would be a sight.

What, no pics of Code Pinkers dressed as va-jay-jays? If anything tells you how the dems see women, that does.

Some republicans apparently believe they’ve been informed by God that a fertilized egg smaller than the period at the end of this sentence should be granted full constitutional rights .

My own God-given reason tells me that this message makes little sense, that it’s source is unverifiable, and that people who believe they must force everyone else to comply with laws based upon it have no business being in offices that will empower them to do so.

@Greg:
Actually, Greg, most Christians believe that people will be held accountable for willfully taking life.
Later, after their own deaths.
Most Christians would not like to be in such a position.
But they recognize that others are more callous regarding life.
Their consciences are seared.
Most Christians simply do not want to be FORCED to pay for (or in ANY WAY support) those who make their livelihoods taking the lives of innocent human victims.
Most people who disagree with Roe V Wade agree it is based on a flimsy penumbra of a precedent.
But even though this is true, most Christians believe in leaving this to the STATES.
Certainly not being forced to pay for it.

@Greg:

that it’s source is unverifiable, and that people who believe they must force everyone else to comply with laws based upon it have no business being in offices that will empower them to do so.

And yet, you believe that since the “source” is unverifiable, that it is wrong, and so you demand government force everyone to comply with laws based upon your viewpoint.

Do you not see how disingenuous your line of reasoning is? That one side’s force you disavow, but readily support the other side’s force.

You aren’t for freedom and liberty. You are for totalitarianism. Just as long as it’s on your terms.

@Greg: Nan is right Greg. When the government forces a person to do something that is against their principles, then the government is violating that persons 1st ammendment rights. Now for people with no principles, there is no problem. Would that include you?

@ THE TOOL

Some republicans apparently believe they’ve been informed by God that a fertilized egg smaller than the period at the end of this sentence should be granted full constitutional rights .

DNA is found in every living organism. If human DNA can be extracted from a fertilized egg /embryo/fetus it is a living human being. I find it disgusting that Greg celebrates his right kill an unborn child.

Is there some particular school system to be blamed for this, or did your mind tend wander a lot during science classes?

Let’s not let greg derail the thread. That is his goal.
It is clear that women are nothing but vagina life support systems as far as the dems are concerned.
People like greg believe:
Tearing an unborn baby apart piece by piece is a right, humane, and just.
Executing a brutal, convicted murder by puting him to sleep, is cruel and inhumane and must be stopped.
Most Americans are against abortion and for the death penalty, so keep barking up that tree lefties.
You know who else believed in “disposing” of “undesirables”? That other group of socialists, the nazis.

@Hard Right:

What’s most interesting about Greg’s position on abortion is that it flies in the face of the consensus of doctors and scientists.

The science is settled: life begins at conception.

@Aye:

Folks like greg don’t know or care what science is. They have their “religion” and are determined to impose it on everyone. Selfless narcissists is a dead on description of the left.

@Hard Right:
To spell things out for you lefties, the “undesirable” are those unborn babies that “punish” women.

Has anyone seen the DNC convention line up?

I heard they were going to change the name of it to the Obamabortiorama.

@Nan G: Where do you the authority to speak for most Christians? At most, maybe your words could be taken to speak for Fundamentalist Christians.

@johngalt: Yes, the existence unicorns is unverifiable, and most people don’t believe they exist. Verifiability is axiomatic to providing evidence. If you don’t need evidence, you can say anything—which righties like to do.

@liberal1 she speaks from the authority of the word of God & she speaks for me!!

@Aye:

The question is not whether the fetus is a life—or even a human life, in the genus species sense—but whether it is a human being aware of it own existence. In fact, as far as this matter goes, it’s very much like a puppy life in the womb—except for the religious denotation.

@tomd: I don’t believe in the mythology of god, which people have resorted to for millenniums to help them be free of fear and mortality.

@Hard Right: #12 Doesn’t make sense.

@Liberal1 (objectivity):

The question is not whether the fetus is a life—or even a human life, in the genus species sense—but whether it is a human being aware of it own existence.

Newborns are not “aware of [their] own existence” either. You okay with killing them after they are born?

How about people with brain injuries? Some of them are not “aware of [their] own existence.”

How about Alzheimer’s patients? They’re not, in many cases, “aware of [their] own existence” either. You okay with putting a pillow over their face? You okay with depriving them of fluids and nourishment? You okay with giving them an injection?

It’s called the right to life. It’s inalienable.

And “awareness” has zip, zero, zilch, nada to do with it.

It’s not about being pro-abortion.I personally despise it,as do most Americans. I am pro adoption.Make it easier.
In the case of rape,incest or mother’s life I defer to the woman’s choice.

@Liberal1 (objectivity):

You apparently missed my point to Greg, Lib1. Not a surprise as you lefties tend to chase the shiny objects instead of what really matters.

The point was that Greg complains about the “force”, through government, that the right is advocating on the issue of abortion, but is quite OK with the “force”, through government, that the left is advocating on the issue of abortion.

@Aye: A lot of liberals are not aware of their own existence. Shall we aboty yhem by firing squad?