the US war on women; female suffrage might be next

[Sasha]

just when you would think that they could not get more reactionary....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/07/fox-news-contributor-laments-mistake-of-letting-women-vote/

:crying:

[Bostana]

o' FOX news. always says something we can all laugh at

[Misanthrope]

o' FOX news. always says something we can all laugh at

Misogyny isn't funny bro:(:(

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I bet Fox News will love him even more for this.

Now if he just called for the burning of Mosques and called Obama a "socialist" then he could have his own talk show.

[gorillafuck]

the US war on women; female suffrage might be nextwhat the fuck do you think it's like in the US?:confused:

[Zav]

So, where's the outrage? Oh, wait, no one cares anymore. They have more important things to think about: House, Glee, Oprah, and Ancient Aliens.

[corolla]

just when you would think that they could not get more reactionary....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/07/fox-news-contributor-laments-mistake-of-letting-women-vote/

:crying:

Could the title of this thread possibly be any more sensationalist?

Some individual fringe lunatic saying something insane that has absolutely no traction or support, even among run-of-the-mill tea party right-wingers, is really not newsworthy, and most certainly doesn't represent some broader trend against women's suffrage. Seriously, anyone who honestly thinks there is a snowball's chance in Hell that women's suffrage is going to be repealed in the US, or that this dipshit's sentiments have any sort of significant following, is probably in a state of severe psychosis.

But I'm sure all the liberal talkingheads on MSNBC will dedicate their entire time-slots tonight to yammering on about this irrelevant idiot rather than highlighting any of the actual, material attacks being carried out right now against the position of working class women in the US.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

So, where's the outrage? Oh, wait, no one cares anymore. They have more important things to think about: House, Glee, Oprah, and Ancient Aliens.

Why do women have the right to vote? Aliens

[corolla]

So, where's the outrage? Oh, wait, no one cares anymore. They have more important things to think about: House, Glee, Oprah, and Ancient Aliens.

Yeah, dawg, everybody's so dumb except for you. They're all a bunch of mindless sheeple!

But actually, its more like this


They have more important things to think about than some irrelevant lunatic saying dumb shit on FOX news: paying the bills, working/looking for work, taking care of kids, putting food on the table, and gas prices through the roof.

[Althusser]

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

-- Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001

[Koba Junior]

You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love.

What kind of women does this guy surround himself with? And I refuse to believe that Ann Coulter, of all people, thinks women "have no capacity to understand how money is earned." How many dollars does she pull from her crackpot book sales in a year?

[Zav]

Yeah, dawg, everybody's so dumb except for you. They're all a bunch of mindless sheeple!

But actually, its more like this
No.
Is the human population in general not a bunch of sheeple who care more about sensationalist news than real problems? I am outraged that this person gets on the news, and asked why people let him in front of a camera, NOT why no one was outraged at his message. There are crazier people. In the future I ask that you refrain from calling me 'dawg', even sarcastically. Also, you would do well to not insinuate that your comrades do not understand that people care most about bills, work, and their children.
I swear that no one here understands my sense of humor.



The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned.
What the fuck? That's more wrong than that person who claimed that rain-forests were infertile.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I'm beginning to think that in reality, Fox News is run by revolutionary socialists, and all of their programs are just meant to be a parody.

But in all seriousness what reality do these people inhabit? What sort of bullshit must these people believe to drive them to such ridiculous conclusions?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Some times I wonder if conservatives have any brain cells at all.

[piet11111]

But in all seriousness what reality do these people inhabit? What sort of bullshit must these people believe to drive them to such ridiculous conclusions?


Religion ! the most misogynistic literature known to humanity.
The guy is a reverend afterall.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Could the title of this thread possibly be any more sensationalist?

Some individual fringe lunatic saying something insane that has absolutely no traction or support, even among run-of-the-mill tea party right-wingers, is really not newsworthy, and most certainly doesn't represent some broader trend against women's suffrage. Seriously, anyone who honestly thinks there is a snowball's chance in Hell that women's suffrage is going to be repealed in the US, or that this dipshit's sentiments have any sort of significant following, is probably in a state of severe psychosis.

But I'm sure all the liberal talkingheads on MSNBC will dedicate their entire time-slots tonight to yammering on about this irrelevant idiot rather than highlighting any of the actual, material attacks being carried out right now against the position of working class women in the US.

Too bad I can't positive rep you, because this is spot on. I wanted to say the same thing myself. If you really think that women's right to suffrage in the United States will now be repealed simply because of one psychopath's statements which are in no way the popular opinion, outside or inside the government, then you are either crazy or just a bourgeois feminist who inappropriately sensationalizes non-important issues when there are more pressing proletarian issues to worry about. I don't have a problem with sharing, just with sensationalizing.

[corolla]

Is the human population in general not a bunch of sheeple who care more about sensationalist news than real problems?
No. I think the vast majority of people face real problems in their day to day lives and care deeply about the problems they face, even if this doesn't necessarily translate into some sort of overtly political consciousness. I think generally the people who care about the SHOCKING NEW THING that Moneygrubbing Jackass Nobody Jr. said on FOX News are mostly navel-gazing pundits and middle class liberals.


I am outraged that this person gets on the news, and asked why people let him in front of a camera, NOT why no one was outraged at his message. :confused: Actually, what you said was...

So, where's the outrage? Oh, wait, no one cares anymore. They have more important things to think about: House, Glee, Oprah, and Ancient Aliens.
Anyway, why do you think people let him in front of a camera? Its FOX News, they make big bucks off dumb shit like this. What did you expect, that this one time the producers would step in and say "Sorry, Reverend, but that's offensive."

In the future I ask that you refrain from calling me 'dawg', even sarcastically.Um, OK... not to derail the thread, but can I ask why? Its a pretty unusual thing to be bothered by.


Also, you would do well to not insinuate that your comrades do not understand that people care most about bills, work, and their children. I don't know you, and so don't know what you do or don't understand. I only know what you have said in your posts in this thread, and I think certain conclusions can be drawn from them. But if I have misunderstood you, then clarify away.

[corolla]

bourgeois feminist

It seems that you have a bit of a "bourgeois feminist" boogeyman thing going on. ;)

I don't think the issue here is that people are "bourgeois feminists", but rather that they seem to be lacking a bit of perspective.

[Zav]

No. I think the vast majority of people face real problems in their day to day lives and care deeply about the problems they face, even if this doesn't necessarily translate into some sort of overtly political consciousness. I think generally the people who care about the SHOCKING NEW THING that Moneygrubbing Jackass Nobody Jr. said on FOX News are mostly navel-gazing pundits and middle class liberals.
:confused: Actually, what you said was...

Anyway, why do you think people let him in front of a camera? Its FOX News, they make big bucks off dumb shit like this. What did you expect, that this one time the producers would step in and say "Sorry, Reverend, but that's offensive."
Um, OK... not to derail the thread, but can I ask why? Its a pretty unusual thing to be bothered by.
I don't know you, and so don't know what you do or don't understand. I only know what you have said in your posts in this thread, and I think certain conclusions can be drawn from them. But if I have misunderstood you, then clarify away.
I didn't suggest that people in general didn't care at all about real issues. I said that they care more about sensationalist crap. I've no idea what navel-gazing pundits are. :confused: There's really nothing wrong with gazing at navels if that's what one's into.

Oh, I apologize. I see that I didn't specify what precisely I thought was outrageous.

I was hoping one of them would say "Good sir, that is some dumb ass shit you're spewing." because I didn't think that even FOX News would condone such reactionary things. I was sadly mistaken, and that 'news' station's far-right tendencies are apparently not to be underestimated. Next they'll be asking for a king and serfdom.

I've no idea. That and supporting Fascism or Randianism are my "I shall now punch you in the face." buttons.

I assume that everyone in Europe and the Americas (Australia too) understands that, because everyone there has a basic understanding of the same material conditions. I simply took your tone as rude, and thus inferred underestimation on your part.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Could the title of this thread possibly be any more sensationalist?

Some individual fringe lunatic saying something insane that has absolutely no traction or support, even among run-of-the-mill tea party right-wingers, is really not newsworthy, and most certainly doesn't represent some broader trend against women's suffrage. Seriously, anyone who honestly thinks there is a snowball's chance in Hell that women's suffrage is going to be repealed in the US, or that this dipshit's sentiments have any sort of significant following, is probably in a state of severe psychosis.

But I'm sure all the liberal talkingheads on MSNBC will dedicate their entire time-slots tonight to yammering on about this irrelevant idiot rather than highlighting any of the actual, material attacks being carried out right now against the position of working class women in the US.

While, yes, it's sensationalist and I don't think there is an actual threat to women's voting rights - not at this moment anyway - but I think it's a mistake to just dismiss this comment as "out of the blue". Sure there's no credible movement against suffrage right now, but there is a clearly a trend to demonize women right now.

Part of it is just the election, "rally the base" with some wedge-issue thing, but I think it goes beyond that. For one thing women are the majority of the workforce and in a broad sense haven't seen as much of a decline in employment and wages as men on average (of course women are starting from lower wages already). In addition many of the places where unions have put up a little more resistance to austerity and the sectors the ruling class wants to attack are in female-dominated or majority occupations such as in health and education. And all this is in the context of austerity and the ruling class's need to reorganize the labor terrain and lower working class wages and living standard expectations. So in this context, these attacks are partially on the legitimacy and value of female labor - if women "should" be at home raising kids, if work is just a secondary issue but child-care is "inherently" the primary role of women, then it's easier to create a tiered workforce, it's easier to convince unemployed men that employed women are the problem.

I've been on a few picket lines for nurses and teachers in the last couple of years and part of the anti-worker propaganda that has come up in all these picket lines is a claim that by striking, these workers are showing that they care more about money than students/sick people. Since these strikers in these cases were overwhelmingly women I think the subtext is clear: women should be teachers or nurses because they are naturally inclined to care - this isn't a means to support themselves but should be a way for women to apply their "natural" care-giver urges. So there "must be something wrong with you" if you are a teacher who actually needs a paycheck or needed to support yourself is a corruption of the purity of motherly female instincts. I was also at a recent steel-worker strike and no one in the media and no representatives of the company implied that the strike was wrong because it shows that the male workers don't care deeply about the steel commodities they produce.

[Sasha]

^ amen

Of course i dont really think they will actually repeal female sufferage, do not forget though that the attacks on abortion, planned parrenthood, plan b and contraception also started with "some religious crackpots" and now enjoy broad support in the republican party.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

...is it a little unreasonable to allow a public stoning for FOX anchors, writers, owners and anyone else associated with it?
Just one afternoon, a few hours of the kind of old school punishment these fucks would support, if it was being dished out on someone else.

[gorillafuck]

Of course i dont really think they will actually repeal female sufferage, do not forget though that the attacks on abortion, planned parrenthood, plan b and contraception also started with "some religious crackpots" and now enjoy broad support in the republican party.no, that's false.

[Jimmie Higgins]

no, that's false.Um. Care to elaborate?

The religious right movement seems to be the door through which these attacks are transmitted. Of course they gain legitimacy and support because they suit the needs of the ruling class. But as I argued earlier, I think attacks on the whole concept of women's rights is very much in the immediate interests of the US ruling class - they will not go as far as to end voting rights (and probably couldn't if they wanted to). However, to me it seems the same as when pundits were getting away with "Nuke Mecca" comments or when the anti-Park 51 people are given legitimacy... it's all part of a real attack even if the intention isn't to literally go as extreme as the people trying to whip-up islamophobia... or in this case sexism.

[gorillafuck]

Um. Care to elaborate?sure. the issue of abortion has always been a hot topic in the US. it did not become widely contested because the "crackpots" of the religious right started making a big deal out of it, as if it had been previously universally accepted. it was always very controversial since the moment it was legalized. this is in stark contrast to female suffrage which is about as close to universally supported as anything in America is, and enjoys a level of support that is leagues above what the right to abortion has ever had in the US.

[Jimmie Higgins]

sure. the issue of abortion has always been a hot topic in the US. it did not become widely contested because the "crackpots" of the religious right started making a big deal out of it, as if it had been previously universally accepted. it was always very controversial since the moment it was legalized. this is in stark contrast to female suffrage which is about as close to universally supported as anything in America is, and enjoys a level of support that is leagues above what the right to abortion has ever had in the US.

During the women's lib movement, it was contested but pro-abortion ideas were on the offensive and services were being set up and EXPANDED. Now existing services are being reduced (often selectively) and the legal rights erroded. Even the liberal groups don't do anything around this anymore and while Democrats used to have defense of abortion as part of their platform, now they are, as a rule, equivocal about it and their defense of abortion goes as far as scaremongering to their base during elections (vote for us, even though we're shitty at least we won't put explicitly pro-life judges in). So looking at the percentages of pro/con support doesn't tell us much about the actual political balance on this question.

Actually support non-support has fluctuated quite a bit when it comes to abortion. Before the right, abortion was fought on the ground of "women's rights" and now, because the right backed a christian conservative "New Right" strategy, the debate is about "life of the fetus". Even though abortion was controversial in the early 80s, there never would have been a 10,000 person march against abortion in San Francisco and now each year there is on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That's some lost ideological and political ground right there.

Besides, again, I'm not arguing that there is some direct strategy for this or even a desire on the part of the ruling class to get rid of the vote for women - just that it is part of an overall larger attack, supported by the ruling class, to errode the legitimacy of the idea of female labor and rights as well as scapegoat female labor.

[gorillafuck]

During the women's lib movement, it was contested but pro-abortion ideas were on the offensive and services were being set up and EXPANDED. Now existing services are being reduced (often selectively) and the legal rights erroded. Even the liberal groups don't do anything around this anymore and while Democrats used to have defense of abortion as part of their platform, now they are, as a rule, equivocal about it and their defense of abortion goes as far as scaremongering to their base during elections (vote for us, even though we're shitty at least we won't put explicitly pro-life judges in). So looking at the percentages of pro/con support doesn't tell us much about the actual political balance on this question.yeah, there was a backlash when abortion services were being expanded. that doesn't make the point I was making any less true.


Actually support non-support has fluctuated quite a bit when it comes to abortion. Before the right, abortion was fought on the ground of "women's rights" and now, because the right backed a christian conservative "New Right" strategy, the debate is about "life of the fetus". Even though abortion was controversial in the early 80s, there never would have been a 10,000 person march against abortion in San Francisco and now each year there is on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That's some lost ideological and political ground right there.yes, but it was still very controversial. just because more people are mobilized against it today does not mean it wasn't enormously controversial at the time. way, way more controversial than womens right to vote is or was, which is my primary point.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fuck me. Even for the far-right in America, that seems extreme. I'm rather taken aback by that, crazy shit!