June 09, 2014

You're Not Helping, Morons

This is the kind of mindless, clueless jackwagonry that is killing conservatives at the polls:

A group of male Michigan Republicans decided to answer critics of a controversial law requiring women to buy abortion insurance in case of a rape with an image of themselves holding women's fashion magazines. In what progressive groups are calling a poor attempt at humor, state House Republicans Peter Pettalia, Roger Victory, and Ben Glardon posed in the image posted to Twitter.

In the picture, the men pose with copies of Glamour and Harper's Bazaar to prove they care about women's concerns.

What should women like me, who have voted for conservatives consistently for over 35 years, take from this? That these jackasses think reading fashion magazines is a good way to become informed on public policy issues that affect women?

That women shouldn't expect politicians to care about these issues because they're frivolous and silly? You know... kind of like reading women's mags?

I have no problem whatsoever with insurance policies not covering abortions that aren't medically necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. Given that pregnancy is easily avoidable by using inexpensive birth control, it's not at all unreasonable to expect women to bear the cost of birth control and exercise reasonable care to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I say that as someone who was 2 1/2 months pregnant when she married, by the way. Someone who used birth control that failed. So I completely understand what it's like to be in this situation and was fully prepared to deal with it (and by "deal with it", I mean bear and raise our child) if the father of my child chose not to marry me.

It's called assumption of the risk, and it's something we used to expect grownups to do. Even grownups who are only 19 when they screw up (so to speak).

I have a very big problem with the State forcing a woman who was raped to bear a child she does not want, though I completely understand the arguments for preserving the lives of innocent children conceived by rapists. Wherever one comes down on this tremendously difficult issue, making light of it is just plain stupid and offensive.

There are credible ways to make the argument that don't involve being condescending and insulting. Of course that would require intelligence and self restraint.

Hint: when you manage to convince loyal, voting female conservatives that you're a monumental jackass, you're doing conservatism wrong.

Posted by Cassandra at 07:05 AM | Comments (28) | TrackBack

August 02, 2013

Friday Inflammatory Debate Topic

From the comments following a post by Ann Althouse:

I have a question, Pr. Althouse. Would you view it as wrong for a man to ask women to sign a contract stating that she would not seek child support for any children resulting from sexual relations? Would such a contract be enforceable? (Assume it is properly signed and witnessed etc.)

We stopped reading the discussion there (no time), but have a question:

On what equitable basis should the legal system allow a mother to unilaterally sign away half her child's legal right to child support? It is called "child support" and not "maternal support" for a reason. And if you think women already exercise way too much power over what the abortion crowd like to call reproductive rights, why should we give them any more?

It never ceases to amaze us how everyone discusses unintended pregnancies as though the child has no interests that might deserve protection. We see an awful lot of conservatives do that, and often they're the ones who think abortion is murder. So they clearly realize that unborn children are people, too. Unless, of course, their so-called rights inconvenience the wrong parent.

Amazing. One might almost be justified in concluding that this whole balancing competing interests thingy isn't as simple as it seems on the Internet.

Posted by Cassandra at 07:17 AM | Comments (42) | TrackBack