8 ms·

We are not in the 19th century. There are a lot of Republican women in power. Here's one specifically from Idaho, if we were talking about Idaho laws: https://w

by smsm42 4y ago

We are not in the 19th century. There are a lot of Republican women in power. Here's one specifically from Idaho, if we were talking about Idaho laws: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261271217.html https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/stat... I see no indication Republican women radically differ from Republican men substantially on this issue, at least in the polls I've seen. And if there were, there are enough prominent Republican women that would be able to speak up on the issue. So I think your simplistic take of "patriarchal Republicans oppress women again" is probably a couple of generations late.

ModernMech 4y ago
Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin is 59 years old. I don't think she will be affected by a ban on abortion. If she does somehow need an abortion, I'm sure she'll get one in Canada or Washington. As for the poorest women in her state, they will not be able to afford such a luxury, and therefore have to live with the consequences of McGeachin's position while McGeachin herself will not. That's my point.
- smsm42 4y ago
  You are desperately grasping at straws. There are many conservative young women. Of course a prominent politician would be on the older side - where would you see a 20-year old governor (or lt. governor)? It takes time to climb the ladder. You point is wrong - McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally, at least not primarily so, but because a lot of people in her state - yes, including a lot of women, check any serious poll and you'd see women and men differ very little at that question - support this position, and the is the politician that aligns with those people. You may completely disagree with them, and that's fine, that's what the democracy is for - but don't make it about sexism, or age, or anything like that, because it isn't about that at all.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Claiming that laws specifically targeting women's bodies are not about sexism at all is what looks like grasping at straws to me. I think maybe your mistake is believing that someone can't be sexist against their own sex. Women are specifically targeted by these laws, they will face punishment due to these laws, and they will in fact die because of these laws. Their economic prospects will drop. Single women and their children will fall into poverty at faster rates. We know all these things will happen because the opposite happened when Roe was decided. This isn't a mystery to anyone. > McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally ... but because a lot of people in her state ... support this position I'll remind anyone reading this that the Idaho GOP just voted to exclude support for a life-of-the-mother exception to their party's official platform. I highly doubt the majority of women agree with that, even in Idaho. That is a very extreme position. We'll have to wait on the polling to come out on that because it just happened this weekend. But sure, let's just say for the sake of argument they do actually hold that position. What I'm saying is that every woman who supports this position and needs a lifesaving abortion will either leave Idaho to get an abortion, or die in Idaho because they couldn't afford to leave. McGeachin and everyone she loves and cares about will be in the former group, I guarantee you that.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      > Claiming that laws specifically targeting women's bodies are not about sexism at all is what looks like grasping at straws to me. Nope. You need to understand the difference between "law affecting women because the matter in question is women" and "law affecting women because somebody wants to hurt women specifically". The abortion regulation can not be not about women (weird exceptions excluded) - it doesn't mean it is based only on the desire to subjugate and oppress women, this is just a stupid take that reduces everything to a bumper sticker. > and they will in fact die because of these laws. Nope, they won't. Idaho GOP position is not the law and I don't think it's likely it will become the law. The actual law is different and does not preclude pregnancy termination if it is necessary for saving woman's life. Women may die because they would make a decision due to these laws - e.g. to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion instead of, e.g., carrying to term and giving the child for adoption - but there would be always conscious choice and action involved. Again, you are confusing regulation that concerns women - because, obviously, any abortion regulation would - and one that is designed to hurt women, which it is not. > I highly doubt the majority of women agree with that, even in Idaho. I do not know about the majority, but I am sure some do. In any case, again, the reason why they take this position is not because they hate women, and until you realize that, you won't understand anything about their positions. Maybe you don't want to, but I am here to tell you your position is wrong. Maybe you don't care to know the truth - that's also your choice.
btilly 4y ago
No, I think that the simplistic take still has the sting of truth about it. As https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2018/09/14/age-race-and-gender-split-in-political-parties-could-lead-to-voter-discrimination/ https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2018/09/14/age-race-and-gender-s... says, demographics of party support are that the Republican base is dominated by older men, while the Democratic base is dominated by younger women. Therefore Republicans really are going to have an institutional bias against issues that affect young women. This can be seen by Republican opposition to abortion, childcare issues, and vaccinating against HPV (which causes cancer in women).
- smsm42 4y ago
  Republicans also opposed Medicare and Social Security expansion, so by that logic they hate older people too. "Institutional bias" is a meaningless phrase that does not explain anything. Conservative positions and their sources are well known and do not need any magic invisible (or visible only to the left, magically) properties to explain. It is not a huge surprise why conservative Christians don't like abortion - they have been talking for decades why, and one needs no magic "bias" to understand that argument, even if you disagree with it. Introducing this just makes the whole political discussion weird - people tell you "we think so and so because of this and that" and you tell them "no, in fact you don't think this, you are just not completely sane and affected by 'bias', which you can not see but I can, so let me explain what you truly think and why!". That doesn't sound like something that can lead to anything sensical. It is true that older people tend to be more conservative, statistically - but it is just silly to reduce all the gamut of political opinions and ideologies to that one thing.
  - btilly 4y ago
    What you are arguing is that, "The fact that their rhetoric doesn't agree with the take means that the take has no validity." This form of argument is always available, and always meaningless. For example Russian rhetoric is that they are fighting Nazis, and not that they are attempting genocide. That doesn't change that they are attempting genocide. In the case of Republicans, we have a group of mostly older white men. Most of whom agree with a set of cultural values around family, marriage and so on. For example in polls, Republicans are over 1.5 times more likely than Democrats to say that women should stay home and not work. It is no surprise that Republicans are far less likely to support programs to give women access to child care for the purpose of working. Republicans are generally opposed to abortion. Republicans are far less willing to accept that unmarried women should enjoy sexual freedom, cohabit without marriage, and so on. Republicans will cite a variety of sources for these positions, such as the Bible. But what it adds up to is that Republicans broadly support traditional patriarchal positions about the role of women, while opposing social changes and policies that most women would like, and feel gives them more freedom to live their lives as they will. It is not horribly unreasonable to describe this as, "patriarchal Republicans oppress women again." No matter how much that does not fit the stories that Republicans tell about themselves.

by smsm42 4y ago

ModernMech 4y ago

Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin is 59 years old. I don't think she will be affected by a ban on abortion. If she does somehow need an abortion, I'm sure she'll get one in Canada or Washington. As for the poorest women in her state, they will not be able to afford such a luxury, and therefore have to live with the consequences of McGeachin's position while McGeachin herself will not. That's my point.

smsm42 4y ago
You are desperately grasping at straws. There are many conservative young women. Of course a prominent politician would be on the older side - where would you see a 20-year old governor (or lt. governor)? It takes time to climb the ladder. You point is wrong - McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally, at least not primarily so, but because a lot of people in her state - yes, including a lot of women, check any serious poll and you'd see women and men differ very little at that question - support this position, and the is the politician that aligns with those people. You may completely disagree with them, and that's fine, that's what the democracy is for - but don't make it about sexism, or age, or anything like that, because it isn't about that at all.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Claiming that laws specifically targeting women's bodies are not about sexism at all is what looks like grasping at straws to me. I think maybe your mistake is believing that someone can't be sexist against their own sex. Women are specifically targeted by these laws, they will face punishment due to these laws, and they will in fact die because of these laws. Their economic prospects will drop. Single women and their children will fall into poverty at faster rates. We know all these things will happen because the opposite happened when Roe was decided. This isn't a mystery to anyone. > McGeachin has this position not because it doesn't affect her personally ... but because a lot of people in her state ... support this position I'll remind anyone reading this that the Idaho GOP just voted to exclude support for a life-of-the-mother exception to their party's official platform. I highly doubt the majority of women agree with that, even in Idaho. That is a very extreme position. We'll have to wait on the polling to come out on that because it just happened this weekend. But sure, let's just say for the sake of argument they do actually hold that position. What I'm saying is that every woman who supports this position and needs a lifesaving abortion will either leave Idaho to get an abortion, or die in Idaho because they couldn't afford to leave. McGeachin and everyone she loves and cares about will be in the former group, I guarantee you that.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    > Claiming that laws specifically targeting women's bodies are not about sexism at all is what looks like grasping at straws to me. Nope. You need to understand the difference between "law affecting women because the matter in question is women" and "law affecting women because somebody wants to hurt women specifically". The abortion regulation can not be not about women (weird exceptions excluded) - it doesn't mean it is based only on the desire to subjugate and oppress women, this is just a stupid take that reduces everything to a bumper sticker. > and they will in fact die because of these laws. Nope, they won't. Idaho GOP position is not the law and I don't think it's likely it will become the law. The actual law is different and does not preclude pregnancy termination if it is necessary for saving woman's life. Women may die because they would make a decision due to these laws - e.g. to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion instead of, e.g., carrying to term and giving the child for adoption - but there would be always conscious choice and action involved. Again, you are confusing regulation that concerns women - because, obviously, any abortion regulation would - and one that is designed to hurt women, which it is not. > I highly doubt the majority of women agree with that, even in Idaho. I do not know about the majority, but I am sure some do. In any case, again, the reason why they take this position is not because they hate women, and until you realize that, you won't understand anything about their positions. Maybe you don't want to, but I am here to tell you your position is wrong. Maybe you don't care to know the truth - that's also your choice.

btilly 4y ago

No, I think that the simplistic take still has the sting of truth about it. As https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2018/09/14/age-race-and-gender-split-in-political-parties-could-lead-to-voter-discrimination/ https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2018/09/14/age-race-and-gender-s... says, demographics of party support are that the Republican base is dominated by older men, while the Democratic base is dominated by younger women. Therefore Republicans really are going to have an institutional bias against issues that affect young women. This can be seen by Republican opposition to abortion, childcare issues, and vaccinating against HPV (which causes cancer in women).

smsm42 4y ago
Republicans also opposed Medicare and Social Security expansion, so by that logic they hate older people too. "Institutional bias" is a meaningless phrase that does not explain anything. Conservative positions and their sources are well known and do not need any magic invisible (or visible only to the left, magically) properties to explain. It is not a huge surprise why conservative Christians don't like abortion - they have been talking for decades why, and one needs no magic "bias" to understand that argument, even if you disagree with it. Introducing this just makes the whole political discussion weird - people tell you "we think so and so because of this and that" and you tell them "no, in fact you don't think this, you are just not completely sane and affected by 'bias', which you can not see but I can, so let me explain what you truly think and why!". That doesn't sound like something that can lead to anything sensical. It is true that older people tend to be more conservative, statistically - but it is just silly to reduce all the gamut of political opinions and ideologies to that one thing.
- btilly 4y ago
  What you are arguing is that, "The fact that their rhetoric doesn't agree with the take means that the take has no validity." This form of argument is always available, and always meaningless. For example Russian rhetoric is that they are fighting Nazis, and not that they are attempting genocide. That doesn't change that they are attempting genocide. In the case of Republicans, we have a group of mostly older white men. Most of whom agree with a set of cultural values around family, marriage and so on. For example in polls, Republicans are over 1.5 times more likely than Democrats to say that women should stay home and not work. It is no surprise that Republicans are far less likely to support programs to give women access to child care for the purpose of working. Republicans are generally opposed to abortion. Republicans are far less willing to accept that unmarried women should enjoy sexual freedom, cohabit without marriage, and so on. Republicans will cite a variety of sources for these positions, such as the Bible. But what it adds up to is that Republicans broadly support traditional patriarchal positions about the role of women, while opposing social changes and policies that most women would like, and feel gives them more freedom to live their lives as they will. It is not horribly unreasonable to describe this as, "patriarchal Republicans oppress women again." No matter how much that does not fit the stories that Republicans tell about themselves.