Althouse: "Women are not some monolithic voting bloc, women are not an interest group, you shouldn’t be treated that way."

April 6, 2012

"Women are not some monolithic voting bloc, women are not an interest group, you shouldn’t be treated that way."

Says Obama. I agree. But... has the Democratic Party been acting like it believes that? Just before that he said: "There’s been a lot of talk about women and women’s issues lately, as there should be, but I think the conversation has been oversimplified."

So... will you call bullshit on the "War on Women"? Or will you alternate between fighting the war and saying there is no war?

105 comments:

Chase said...: If a majority of woman support Obama today, as polls are saying,that is simply further scientific proof that man are genetically more intelligent than women; 4/6/12, 8:04 PM
Blue@9 said...: Or will you alternate between fighting the war and saying there is no war?

It's worked for him in foreign policy, so why not?

Obama will basically say whatever it takes, depending on who is listening. That's why he gets into trouble when the mikes are left on.; 4/6/12, 8:05 PM
Chase said...: uh, "men" are . . . women are simply better spellers . . .; 4/6/12, 8:06 PM
edutcher said...: Christ, what a hypocrite!

(I know...)

He says women aren't a voting bloc, but that's exactly how he treats them.

If we ever have an honest academia in this country, they're going to have a field day psychoanalyzing the co-dependence between the Demos and not only women, but certainly women will be the centerpiece.

PS Chase, I think we're finding a lot of those polls are phonied up; 4/6/12, 8:12 PM
Mundane68 said...: But they have always been at war with Oceania...; 4/6/12, 8:12 PM
rhhardin said...: Only 40% of women are soap opera seekers. A minority!

But that's enough to support the news media, and big enough for Democrats to pander to, for winning elections.

That's why women should have the vote.

The 60% of women who vote like men should see the advantage to them of disenfranchising the 40% that don't.; 4/6/12, 8:13 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: If a majority of woman support Obama today, as polls are saying,that is simply further scientific proof that man are genetically more intelligent than women.

Used to suggest to the women in my life that if the 19th Amdt. had not passed, we woulden't have had our first Black President, the impeached Bill Clinton. And, therefore, his election was indicia of why the amendment should be repealed. And, that women are just plain too emotional to be allowed to vote.

You can be assured that this did not go over well with the women in my family, and, esp. my mother, whose great grandmother and her sisters had worked for suffrage back at least as early as the Civil War (this was combined with a fight against demon rum and slavery).; 4/6/12, 8:16 PM
jungatheart said...: "The 60% of women who vote like men should see the advantage to them of disenfranchising the 40% that don't."

Any suggestions?; 4/6/12, 8:17 PM
jungatheart said...: "And, that women are just plain too emotional to be allowed to vote."

Is it okay for emotional men to vote?

I mean if, according to rh, 40% of women are to stupid to vote, there must be a percentage of men who are also. Shall we institute some sort of psychological test?; 4/6/12, 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Disenfranchise emotional people, yeah that's the solution!; 4/6/12, 8:30 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: What is interesting here to me is that Ann Romney has taken to the campaign trail a different view of women and women's issues. She is pushing economic issues, including the cost of gas, unemployment, etc. as women's issues.

It probably should come as no surprise that Obama did best among young single women (as contrasted with other ages, genders, etc.), just those women least dependent upon on men, and most interested in having society support them, and least worried about having to help or support anyone else.

I think that Ann Romney's idea of women's issues is going to resonate more and more with women as we head towards $5 a dollar gas, the price of food is now skyrocketing, while (official) unemployment remains stubbornly above the level that Obama and Democrats promised that it would hit if they didn't enact their Stimulus bills. Much more important to a lot of women than their out of pocket cost for contraceptives.; 4/6/12, 8:32 PM
pm317 said...: So... will you call bullshit on the "War on Women"? Or will you alternate between fighting the war and saying there is no war?

He can be whatever you want him to be.; 4/6/12, 8:36 PM
Moose said...: I'm saving my outrage for the war on caterpillars...; 4/6/12, 8:41 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I mean if, according to rh, 40% of women are to stupid to vote, there must be a percentage of men who are also. Shall we institute some sort of psychological test?

Note my thesis - that women are too emotional to be allowed to vote, and not that they are too stupid to do so effectively. The nice thing about the 40% figure is that it most likely applies across genders (or sexes - not sure these days which is which).

Now, I don't think that some objective test of fitness and sufficient intelligence for voting might be useful. Also, a tax on voting might not only weed out those who don't want to vote that much, but also many of the 49% or so who don't pay federal income taxes, and thus, are more likely to vote government largess from the pockets of everyone else. Now - I think that all here are willing to admit that the past use of this type of tax to disinfranchise a certain ethnic minority would be irrelevant to the present discussion.; 4/6/12, 8:44 PM
Tim said...: Barack Obama said...
"Women are not some monolithic voting bloc, women are not an interest group, you shouldn’t be treated that way."

Uh, he tries to flatter his second most reliable voting-bloc with lies of their "independence."

Much closer to the truth is Bruce Hayden, who said...

"It probably should come as no surprise that Obama did best among young single women (as contrasted with other ages, genders, etc.), just those women least dependent upon on men, and most interested in having society support them, and least worried about having to help or support anyone else."

If one wants any *explanation* for the "war on women* contrivance, it is this simple: next to the African-American voting-bloc, single women are the Democrats' next largest, i.e., second-most reliable voting-bloc.

As Obama's reelection chances hinge on turning out the dupes who voted for him before (some unknown margin of idiots who voted for him in '08 have learned their lesson), it is critical for him to give cause to these voters to turn out once more him. This also explains much of the manufactured contretemps over the Trayvon Martin killing.

Some opportunities lend themselves too profitably for lies and distortions. Were African-Americans and single-women more independently inclined, neither the "war on women" or the Trayvon Martin situation would have garnered much traction.; 4/6/12, 8:46 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Disenfranchise emotional people, yeah that's the solution!

I will agree with Deborah there, that you should probably also include stupid people, and I would add lazy people, who are unwilling, or at least are unable, to support themselves.; 4/6/12, 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: It's total condescending-- and insulting-- bullshit. I don't need a bunch of strangers in DC to attempt to manipulate my emotions or tell me how to think. I don't need Obama, Sebelius or Congress to take care of me, I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions and taking care of myself.

I do want them to stay the hell out of my life. There's enough to worry about without having to monitor/fight governmental intrusion.; 4/6/12, 8:49 PM
jungatheart said...: I suspect you and rh are saying 'emotional,' but in your minds, translate that into illogical/stupid. Just a feeling.

Also, if it translates across sexes, why specifially single out
women in your statement?; 4/6/12, 8:51 PM
radar said...: At a local panel discussion last night (regarding the Citizens United ruling) Senator Blumenthal (CT) was the main speaker. In his opening remarks he made it a point to take sides on the 'war on women' that was being waged by the Republicans.

Since the meeting was sponsored by the Shoreline League of Democratic Women, his comments were warmly welcomed.

Clearly he has read the Democratic talking points memo.; 4/6/12, 8:55 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Nailed.; 4/6/12, 8:56 PM
Chase said...: Also, if it translates across sexes, why specifially single out
women in your statement?

Please.

If so many women can be influenced by the Democrat scare tactic of a mythical "War on Women" how can that be indicative of anything other than an inferior intellectual intelligence? Answer: It can't possibly be anything else.

Facts and reality are demonstrably hard to distinguish for the simple-minded. Again, how much scientific proof do you need to see that overall women cannot ultimately measure up to men in general intelligence?; 4/6/12, 9:06 PM
edutcher said...: Bruce Hayden said...

Used to suggest to the women in my life that if the 19th Amdt. had not passed, we woulden't have had our first Black President, the impeached Bill Clinton.

Most of the male politicians from FDR on wouldn't be in office if women didn't have the vote.

And someone like Abraham Lincoln has had no future in politics, as well.

deborah said...

Is it okay for emotional men to vote?

In the old days there were a lot of restrictions (the ones on race aside) as to who had the franchise.

So I can't say I have a problem with keeping the easily gulled of either sex away from the polls.

We certainly have a much more frivolous electorate today.

As Bill Buckley famously said (presumably in jest), "Elections should be by invitation only".; 4/6/12, 9:09 PM
Almost Ali said...: Some years ago I was citing a study claiming that women can't drive -AND- talk at the same time, because when they're engrossed in conversation they lose track of their destination.

This citation was going on while my then-girlfriend was driving us to the neighborhood movie theater, with her 14-year-old daughter sitting in the back taking our conversation in.

Understandably, my girlfriend was having none of my women-can't-drive-&-talk-@-the-same-time, until her daughter was laughing so hard her mom finally asked her in exasperation; "What are you laughing at!"

"Mom, you drove past the movie house 2 minutes ago!"

(I'm not sure what this proved, but it certainly proved s-o-m-e-t-h-i-n-g.; 4/6/12, 9:10 PM
garage mahal said...: If so many women can be influenced by the Democrat scare tactic of a mythical "War on Women" how can that be indicative of anything other than an inferior intellectual intelligence? Answer: It can't possibly be anything else.

Facts and reality are demonstrably hard to distinguish for the simple-minded. Again, how much scientific proof do you need to see that overall women cannot ultimately measure up to men in general intelligence?

There is no war on women. They're just fucking stupid and inferior!; 4/6/12, 9:16 PM
edutcher said...: Anent Ann's original question, this is what ABC News had to say about Dictator Zero's performance:

In a much-publicized event at the White House, Obama, who has already called the liberal Georgetown student harangued by Rush Limbaugh, joined the fray again. As women from around the country crowded into an auditorium to hear Obama speak, the president told them that they don’t amount to some political “interest group” and that “you shouldn’t be treated that way.”

He then pandered to them by reminding them that he signed into law a bill that works to help women get paid as much as men do for the same jobs, and that he appointed two women to the Supreme Court…

There was little nonpolitical about the ordeal.; 4/6/12, 9:19 PM
madAsHell said...: He has no accomplishments, and so he panders to women.

If I were a woman, I would be insulted to have a half black man in my underpants.; 4/6/12, 9:20 PM
Synova said...: Women are not a monolithic voting block... but they are *supposed* to be.

Because of *course* women are *for* abortion and *opposed* to abstinence.

Right?

Which is what makes those things a "war on women" even though nearly half of all women support them.

Those women aren't properly women.; 4/6/12, 9:22 PM
bagoh20 said...: It's like the Kung Fu TV show. He acts all peaceful and friendly, and then suddenly a side kick right to the temple. The half-breeds can't be trusted. They were born bad just like Injun Joe. Except Spock. He was a reliable friend to Kirk Obama kind of reminds me of Spock except the loyal part, but he does have that mind meld thing going on. He melded with Alinky way back, and knows all the rules. I bet he does that fart-in thing around the White House just to get charge of the remote. Yep, yer half-breed can't be trusted. Keep that in mind ladies.; 4/6/12, 9:25 PM
Synova said...: You guys are having far too much fun.

Still... it really *ought* to be impossible to vote yourself more of other people's money.; 4/6/12, 9:27 PM
kimsch said...: Leslyn: "Secretly?" Really?

Laws that were duly passed by two houses of the legislature and then signed into law "secretly?"

Oh and abstinence is the only 100% foolproof way to prevent pregnancy or STDs and there are absolutely no side effects.; 4/6/12, 9:30 PM
bagoh20 said...: Sorry about that. I had a Carol Herman moment.; 4/6/12, 9:35 PM
DADvocate said...: The Dems, and Obama, believe women are a monolithic voting bloc. A bloc of poor, pitiful people who can't stand independently and who can't support themselves, thus needing Daddy Big Government to take care of them. Obama only says women aren't a monolithic bloc in order to massage their poor little egos. All you need to do to get the women vote is offer them seemingly free birth control.; 4/6/12, 9:42 PM
edutcher said...: Kimsch, if they were secretly signed, how come such a big piece about them?

I thought secrets were supposed to be, y'know, secret.

bagoh20 said...
The half-breeds can't be trusted. They were born bad just like Injun Joe. Except Spock.

You forgot Quint on "Gunsmoke" and Mingo on "Daniel Boone".; 4/6/12, 9:44 PM
jungatheart said...: Chase, I once saw overlappping bell curves (male vs. female IQ) that indictated the vast majority of men and women fall within the overlap, and that if you randomly choose a man and a woman from the overlap, you could not predict which would be more intelligent.

I briefly looked for something on this, but could not find it. Nighy-night.; 4/6/12, 9:44 PM
jungatheart said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/6/12, 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, what do they have in common?

There will be more who speak out, wait.; 4/6/12, 9:47 PM
edutcher said...: DADvocate said...

The Dems, and Obama, believe women are a monolithic voting bloc. A bloc of poor, pitiful people who can't stand independently and who can't support themselves, thus needing Daddy Big Government to take care of them.

They feel the same way about blacks, Hispanics, and (where's Hatman?) homosexuals.

They used to feel that way about rednecks, hard hats, and Catholics until they started voting Republican.

Jews they just take for granted.; 4/6/12, 9:50 PM
smitty1e said...: Professor, #OccupyResoluteDesk is at war with this whole country.
Call BS? Why, no: he's going to bury this country in it.; 4/6/12, 9:50 PM
purplepenquin said...: Oh and abstinence is the only 100% foolproof way to prevent pregnancy or STDs and there are absolutely no side effects.

Well, actually there is at least one reported case of a woman practicing abstinence and still getting pregnant...but that was about 2000 years ago and appears to be a special situation. this method is also 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

As far as side effects; some males will experience a slight discoloration of the testicles and/or a dull ache in the scrotum if his wife/girlfriend uses abstinence as the only form of birth control.; 4/6/12, 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/6/12, 9:57 PM
edutcher said...: Didn't see Mrs Hutchison saying anything out of the ordinary, but the only people who care what the Weird Sister from Maine and Murki say are Lefties.; 4/6/12, 10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Good luck with that abstinence thingy. I suppose you could always sit in the back seat of every single one of your teens dates. Abstinence is only effective if it's practiced, as I said good luck with that.

I'm sure Sarah Palin taught her daughter abstince being the good mother she is. No disrespect meant toward her lovely daughter, she was a typical teen, that's all, didn't always listen to Mom and all the abstinence only Sex Ed classes in school.; 4/6/12, 10:00 PM
garage mahal said...: We need government small enough to fit inside a woman's uterus.; 4/6/12, 10:02 PM
somefeller said...: garage mahal says: There is no war on women. They're just fucking stupid and inferior!

Yeah, when one sees brilliant comments like the ones on this thread, it's hard to imagine why there's a gender gap forming in favor of Obama. But don't point out that sort of thing, garage, they might get offended!

edutcher says: As Bill Buckley famously said (presumably in jest), "Elections should be by invitation only".

That may be true, but I think it's safe to say that someone like you would be unlikely to receive such an invitation. Something tells me when Buckley had his invited voter in mind, he wasn't thinking of an unemployed buffoon with a gutful of simmering resentments.; 4/6/12, 10:05 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/6/12, 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: "During an interview on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voiced rare support for Planned Parenthood, noting that the organization provides much-needed preventive care to low-income women. The outgoing Texas senator also condemned a recently-enacted Texas law that prohibits Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program and providing health care services to some 130,000 women. The controversial measure has led the federal government to officially stop funding the Texas Women’s Health Program, but Gov. Rick Perry (R) insists that the state will fill the funding gap using state funds.
Hutchison criticized Perry’s decision to turn his back on the federal dollars, which she argued, provide critical care to lower-income women:
HUTCHISON: We cannot afford to lose the Medicaid funding for low income women to have health care services. We cannot. We keep turning back federal funds that every state gets and then try to find money in our budget, which is already being cut in key areas like education. I do think that the governor needs to sit down with the federal government and work it out so we can have our share — our fair share not more — of money for Medicaid to help low-income women have their health care services.
TODD: So it sounds like you think he should not be excluding Planned Parenthood?
HUTCHISON: I think Planned Parenthood does mammograms, they do so much of the health care — the preventive health care and they’re doing that, we need to provide those services, absolutely."; 4/6/12, 10:10 PM
n.n said...: Left-wing ideologues (and many Democrats) have consistently demonstrated that they reject individual dignity. The best that can be said of them is that they are moderate in the sense that they follow the prevailing winds. However, that moderation is opportunistic, and once they have successfully consolidated wealth and power, they will revert to exhibit their true nature, which is defined by the denigration of individual dignity and devaluation of human life. That is the predisposition engendered by their philosophy.; 4/6/12, 10:13 PM
Almost Ali said...: HEADLINE: Sorry, men ARE more brainy than women... It's a simple scientific fact:

"For not only is the average man more intelligent than the average woman but also a clear and rather startling imbalance emerges between the sexes at the high levels of intelligence that the most demanding jobs require.

For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism." - Link; 4/6/12, 10:14 PM
purplepenquin said...: If a teacher's job is dependent on the test results of the students being taught, then does that mean a school that is teaching abstinence-only sex-ed can fire a teacher if a student gets pregnant?; 4/6/12, 10:19 PM
Tibore said...: Lip service statement. What else to expect from a politician?; 4/6/12, 10:31 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: ""Women are not some monolithic voting bloc, women are not an interest group, you shouldn’t be treated that way.""

Can I get a head pat with that?; 4/6/12, 10:36 PM
Unknown said...: There is no war in the sense that the pols divide the country up into all sorts of voting blocks in their sorting hats looking for an edge. The women that fall for the idea that they are the only voting block, the important voting block are the gullible ones being sold a shallow bills of goods.

Look at the obama MO. He all about trying to create a fight in the house. Then wade in and be the savior with a better idea. And he does it while drunk and stoned and spiting on the neighbors. And the women swoon over it. He laps this up. It's a good way for him to get relected.; 4/6/12, 10:37 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Being a woman is often like being in higher education. The others only care that you have the right opinion. Thinking about what the right opinion might be is beside the point.; 4/6/12, 10:38 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Murkowski and Snowe are RINO's. Some say Hutchinson is as well.

P.S. I don't think Planned Parenthood does many if any mammograms- it is one of those librul urban myths.; 4/6/12, 10:49 PM
edutcher said...: Hutchison's remarks are hardly a broadside in the War on Women.

Kindly note the word "rare".

And, as AJ notes, she has had the RINO epithet attached. Largely, when she was going to take a run at Perry.

somefeller said...

Yeah, when one sees brilliant comments like the ones on this thread, it's hard to imagine why there's a gender gap forming in favor of Obama. But don't point out that sort of thing, garage, they might get offended!

Some phony folksy and his flaccid cynicism, coupled with his faux Lefty outrage, are supposed to subdue us all in total awe of him.

Doesn't seem to be working.

As Bill Buckley famously said (presumably in jest), "Elections should be by invitation only".

That may be true, but I think it's safe to say that someone like you would be unlikely to receive such an invitation. Something tells me when Buckley had his invited voter in mind, he wasn't thinking of an unemployed buffoon with a gutful of simmering resentments.

Pot, kettle. Some phony folksy needs to take a look at his previous paragraph before he mouths off about "simmering resentments". Not to mention buffoons.

PS Sounds like someone's been lurking. On company time?

More like Mom's. Funny how some phony folksy shows up every now and again when he's supposed to be "at the office".

PPS He always makes a great show of dripping contempt for the commentariat when he comes here.

His ego must be that shriveled that it needs such reinforcement.

Even if it's only in his mind.; 4/6/12, 11:14 PM
Synova said...: "If a teacher's job is dependent on the test results of the students being taught, then does that mean a school that is teaching abstinence-only sex-ed can fire a teacher if a student gets pregnant?"

Only if a teacher teaching kids to use condoms gets fired for the same reason.

Hm?; 4/6/12, 11:15 PM
Synova said...: Come to think of it, what is up with that?

Why is it logical to expect a perfect record for abstinence education (or even just sex ed that *includes* the idea) but sex ed that is about contraception doesn't have the same failure indicators.

Why shouldn't it?

Obviously, if a kid goes through sex ed that teaches contraception and later on gets pregnant (if the baby is carried to term or aborted, either way) isn't that an equal failure?

Of course it is.; 4/6/12, 11:22 PM
purplepenquin said...: Condoms aren't 100% effective tho, are they? So even if they use 'em as instructed, it could still result in a pregnancy.

If taught properly, abstinence is 100% effective. So if a high-schooler in an abstinence-only sex-ed class gets pregnant, then obviously the student wasn't taught properly.

And if a student isn't taught properly, then isn't that the fault of the teacher?

*tryingreallyhardtokeepastraightfacewhilesayingallthatbutthatlastquestionisactuallykindaserious*; 4/6/12, 11:39 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Today I met a woman who was carrying a baby strapped up in front of her belly as if it were freshly delivered. So that was the conversational handle I used. I asked her if the weight gets to be too much, she said yes, mentioned the women in Tokyo did the same thing except on their backs. Turns out she was in Tokyo too and saw the same thing. British accent. She was curious about Easter. First one in America. The baby was awake, aware, and alert to its surroundings and adorable as all hell hanging there spread eagle facing the world straight on. I told her the baby was making a mess of her garment. Is he drooling now? Yes, all over the place. And the whole time I was thinking, "This woman is AWESOME!." And then her husband showed up with another little boy and that whole thing expanded briefly then broke up.

And then I come here and read your harsh sayings in this thread about women and emotion and voting and at first I thought you were joking and then I thought we were being Mobyed again, and then I became disturbed with the thought that you are not joking at all. I'm not having it.

This is Easter. I'm all up in the Easter Spirit of things right now. I believe it is becoming my favorite of all holidays and because of my good cheer I will share one tiny thing with you, and I expect this tiny thing to be rejected at first but to take hold and to finally change your sorry-ass attitude so sorely in need of improvement.

The master Joshua, son of Joseph was one of the first true feminists. The truth regarding his attitude toward women and his general relationship with women was suppressed following his death. It is one of a few major teachings that simply did not take hold with the people of his time and immediately thereafter. Paul is responsible for most of that. It was one the prices paid to have the good news spread among a broader audience, but the attitude ran just as deep among the Jews.

What a surprise it was for the evangels to hear their master announce,

Tomorrow we will set apart ten women for the ministering work of the kingdom.

The women had served in a previous encampment and tented infirmary. The women had all received the same instruction given the men but it never occurred to the women or to the men that Jesus would pull something so daring as to commission the women to teach the gospel and to administer healing. Later two more were added, Mary Magdalene and Rebecca daughter of Joseph of Arimathea.

I must omit a lot about these spectacular women because this episode is very long. I'm skipping to the end to sum it up at the really beautiful part.

Mary Magdalene had become a woman of great circumspection. She was the chief spokesperson for the women's corps, although she was not their leader, she was their foremost teacher and public spokesperson. The boldness she showed in speaking to the man she took for the caretaker of Joseph's garden indicates the level of horror she felt in finding the tomb empty, that she would break the convention of a Jewish woman speaking to a strange man there at the tomb. The man of course was Jesus, his form not fully recognizable to Mary until he spoke, then May knew it could be no one else.

Imagine this. As the eyes of the celestial intelligences of a universe are focused on this sacred scene at this moment on this isolated planet as God Himself is demonstrating survival of the death experience to his children on Earth it is Mary Magdalene that Jesus choses to present himself first.

Where have you taken the master? Where have you put him? Tell us so we can go there.

No reply. Mary wept.

Jesus asked, "Who do you seek?"

Mary: "We're looking for Jesus who was laid in Joseph's tomb and now he's gone. Where is he?"

Jesus: "Did not this Jesus tell you, even back there in Galilee, that he would die and then rise again?

This was alarming. But Jesus was so changed. Mary and now the women were so distraught they did not recognize him.; 4/6/12, 11:53 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: They were not thinking about resurrection, they wanted to find the body of Jesus but now they were really thrown off and pondered what this person had just said.

Jesus: "Mary."

When she heard her name said that way, the familiar greeting, with all the compassion and the love she lost it right there on the spot and dropped at his feet. The other women recognized him too and knelt.

Mary tried to grab his feet.

Jesus: "Touch me not, Mary, for I am not as you knew me in the flesh. In this form I will tarry with you for a season before I ascend to the Father. But go and tell the men that I have risen and you have talked with me."

They did tell the men. The men dismiss the women. The men said it is in the women's nature to be emotional and irrational and hysterical. Calm down already.

The men went to check things out and the tomb was as the women described it.They still couldn't make sense of it. Mary was downcast because she did as instructed but the men didn't believe her. She wanted to be at the tomb too where she felt closer so she was there when the men checked it out and departed again. Now alone again, Jesus appears again. To Mary.

Jesus: "Be not doubting. Have courage to believe what you have seen and heard. Go back and tell them again that I have risen and that I will appear to them and that I will go into Galilee before them as I promised."

Mary did go back and tell the men again. They didn't believe her the second time either. But when Peter and John got back and reported the scene at the tomb, they dropped the goofing on Mary and became wracked with apprehension.

There is much more missing here I feel urgent to convey but your attention span is short and this space here for this is even shorter so I'm sadly leaving out big chunks of this moving narrative, part that would rip out your heart shred it then put it back in a better shinier heart.

Jesus then appeared to James, his brother in the flesh. That is a separate story.

Jesus appeared visibly to his earthly family and their friends, twenty in all.

Jesus: Peace be upon you. Greetings to those once near me in the flesh and fellowship for my brothers in the kingdom of heaven. How could you doubt? why have you lingered so long before choosing to follow the light of truth with a whole heart? Come, therefore, all of you into the fellowship of the Spirit of Truth in the Father's kingdom."

They were shocked. They recovered. They moved toward him to embrace him. He vanished.

The fifth manifestation occurred in the presence of twenty-five women believers at the home of Joseph of Arimathea. Mary had just returned. She was relating the experience of the previous appearance when suddenly a solemn hush fell over them and they beheld among them the fully visible form of the risen Jesus.

Jesus: "Peace be upon you. In the fellowship of the kingdom there shall be neither Jew nor gentile, rich nor poor, free nor bond, man nor woman. You also are called to publish the good news of the liberty of mankind through the gospel of sonship with God in the kingdom of heaven. Go to all the world proclaiming this gospel and confirm believers in the faith thereof. And while you do this, forget not to minister to the sick and strengthen those who are fainthearted and fear-ridden. And I will be with you always, even to the ends of the earth." Then he vanished and the people fell to their faces.

There were nineteen such appearances each with their own touching and moving descriptions, and those people did go out unto the world and proclaim what they saw there for themselves, what was shown to them, and blessed are those who believe without seeing all that, but the point that I am making right now in this thread is that of those first five visitations of Jesus following his crucifixion Mary Magdalene personally witnessed four of them.

Now I see that Jesus felt and behaved this way about women in his day and I am am shown how to behave in mine.; 4/6/12, 11:54 PM
shiloh said...: "Obama will basically say whatever it takes, depending on who is listening."

Inane generalization notwithstanding, this is why mittens is such an excellent nominee for Reps. :-P ie he has every angle covered. And as a bonus, willard and Obama have the same health care plan lol. Indeed, the same health care plan which was proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and Reps in congress in the early '90s. Oh the humanity!

I digress.

btw, the Rep war on women couldn't have come at a better time for Walker ...; 4/7/12, 12:10 AM
Synova said...: "Condoms aren't 100% effective tho, are they? So even if they use 'em as instructed, it could still result in a pregnancy.'

Condoms aren't 100% effective *because* they are not used properly.

Still, I always thought it was curious that condoms can't be trusted to prevent pregnancy but they can be completely trusted to save your life from a fatal contagious disease.

Rules about risk assessment would put those two things in the opposite order. The consequences of dying from AIDS is far far more serious than the consequences of creating a new human being, so it would make far more sense to judge condoms perfectly trustworthy for contraception and a screaming terror when used for the preservation of life.

Instead we do the opposite.

Go figure.; 4/7/12, 1:01 AM
Rosalyn C. said...: Obama addresses an audience of women to tell them they are not a voting block and should not be treated as such. All the women nod in unison. Anyone else see the irony here?

When he talks to men does he tell them they aren't a monolithic group? No, because it would be incredibly condescending.

Obama has made a point of pandering to young women who want their birth control paid for and their access to abortions unencumbered. Someone want to argue that they aren't seen as a voting block?

Why not talk to mixed groups about birth control and income equality? Don't guys care about sexual freedom for their partners as well as for themselves? Don't guys care that their sisters and wives make as much as any guy who doing the same job?; 4/7/12, 1:16 AM
Bender said...: there is at least one reported case of a woman practicing abstinence and still getting pregnant

It is assumed that you mean Mary, but there is more, much more, than mere abstinence to her perpetual virginity.

Abstinence is only effective if it's practiced, as I said good luck with that.

It is rather odd that a society that demands sexual freedom should believe that it impossible for a person to be master of his sexuality, rather than have his sexual passions control him. Apparently to be sexually free means to be a slave to sexuality.

It is true that abstinence is only effective if it's practiced, just as contraception is only effective if it's practiced (at least effective most of the time). But mere abstitence is less effective when it is merely that, abstaining from sex, rather than being the virtue of chastity, which is more than merely not doing something.

The controversial measure has led the federal government to officially stop funding the Texas Women’s Health Program . . . Hutchison criticized Perry’s decision to turn his back on the federal dollars

Perry didn't cut off the federal funds -- Kathleen Sebelius and Barack Obama cut off the funds. And Sebelius and Obama cut the funding because giving money to an abortion provider is more important to them than women's health.; 4/7/12, 1:55 AM
Bender said...: The truth regarding his attitude toward women and his general relationship with women was suppressed following his death. It is one of a few major teachings that simply did not take hold with the people of his time and immediately thereafter.

That would be a surprise to the early Christian community, men and women alike, which celebrated and revered the many women martyrs and saints, including Agnes, Lucy, Susanna, Priscilla, Cecilia, Perpetua, Felicity, Helen, Monica, not to mention Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalen, Veronica, and of course Mary, the Blessed Mother, later followed by the many women who established religious orders, such as Hildegard, as well as those later recognized as doctors of the Church, such as Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila, plus the strong non-religious women in later centuries like la Católica, Isabella of Castille, who completed the Reconquista, finally expelling Muslim armies out of Europe in 1492 (as well as financing Columbus' voyage).

It is true that, even after Jesus, men acted like men often have throughout history, but that is because such men acted like men, not because Paul subverted the teachings of Jesus.; 4/7/12, 2:25 AM
Bender said...: Obama has made a point of pandering to young women who want their birth control paid for and their access to abortions unencumbered.

Obama has made a point of concerning himself with, and interjecting himself in, what women do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

A strong and free and independent woman would tell him to mind his own damn business and stop obsessing about women's private parts.; 4/7/12, 2:33 AM
Bender said...: the strong non-religious women in later centuries like la Católica, Isabella of Castille

Sorry, that's a term of art that I used here which might be confusing to some. By "non-religious women" I mean those who are not "women religious," that is, they are not "sisters" in religious orders (who are commonly, if imprecisely, called "nuns").; 4/7/12, 2:45 AM
Blue@9 said...: Chase, I once saw overlappping bell curves (male vs. female IQ) that indictated the vast majority of men and women fall within the overlap, and that if you randomly choose a man and a woman from the overlap, you could not predict which would be more intelligent.

For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism."

It's also true that men are far more likely to be outliers on the other end of that curve-- which means we get more geniuses, but also more numbskulls.

Good luck with that abstinence thingy. I suppose you could always sit in the back seat of every single one of your teens dates. Abstinence is only effective if it's practiced, as I said good luck with that.

I gotta agree with this. Pushing abstinence-only is the triumph of ideology over reality. Kids are going to have sex. It's just a fact of modern life. Kids didn't do it way back when because girls were cosseted (there's that word!) in their homes. But then again they got married at 13 years old.

Nowadays, kids freely intermingle and spend a lot of time together--the probability of sex is a sure thing by Vegas odds. No, not every kid will, but a shit-ton will be active by the mid-teens. Even kids from the most religiously conservative families have sex. The most sanctimonious bible-thumper in my high school was pregnant by junior year. AA just posted an article about the way brain chemicals drive our emotions and actions. Sex hormones are incredibly powerful humans, and in teenagers they are just raging.

In some ways I find this issue similar to prohibition or the war on drugs. We've found that we can't just legislate away the human desire for sensory thrills. What is it--prostitution is the oldest profession? The best we can do is deal with it in a sensible way. I'm okay with abstinence ed, but it makes no sense to remove education about contraceptives.; 4/7/12, 2:57 AM
Alex said...: shiloh said...

Inane generalization notwithstanding,

Nothing further is needed.; 4/7/12, 3:22 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Bender the history of the church is clear. Yes, you can point to pictures of women in ecclesiastic poses drawn on the catacomb walls that indicate an important role for women in those early religious communities before there were real churches and then it abruptly stops. Paul appealed to Romans, chiefly soldiers, who practiced mostly Mithraism at that time and the following few centiries.

What I wrote is about Mary specifically but I'm glad that you could find something other specifically to pick about. Fine. Have it your way then, Bender. The followers of Jesus followed him in that too, true to the example he provided, which explains the high positions women hold equally with men in the church throughout its history since then up to today and it explains this thread about women's intelligence and emotional stability to vote on a blog with a predominantly right wing commentariat who accept studies about comparison of intelligence between sexes but rightly reject studies about comparisons of intelligence between adherents of political parties.

Bender. I didn't say women became non entities to Christians. I said they failed to follow the example they were given. And had they followed that example then we wouldn't be having anything remote to this discussion. I said it is one of the chief teachings that did not take and Paul is one of the main reasons why. He was a fierce advocate for the church and advanced Christianity and the teachings of the master suffered a Paulinization because of it, he had no first hand experience observing Jesus with women. I am saying, at that point a significant alteration is made to the teaching of Christ. Being a martyr and made a saint is one thing and having a role in the church is another.; 4/7/12, 4:22 AM
Fen said...: AllieOop: Good luck with that abstinence thingy. I suppose you could always sit in the back seat of every single one of your teens dates. Abstinence is only effective if it's practiced, as I said good luck with that.

Allie needs sex so bad she's willing to kill for it.

You've come a long way baby!; 4/7/12, 5:28 AM
Hagar said...: I don't think Obama sees any need to alternate between his positions. On this as on others he can smoothly proceed to state both, or all, simultaneously and let you hear what you want to believe.; 4/7/12, 6:16 AM
paminwi said...: HUTCHISON: I think Planned Parenthood does mammograms, they do so much of the health care — the preventive health care and they’re doing that, we need to provide those services, absolutely."

This being said by someone who lost to Rick Perry in her run for Governor of Texas. Who is now leaving Congress (maybe to run again?) And, who also should know after all the Planned Parenthood/Susan Komen BS should know that Planned Parenthood DOES NOT DO MAMMOGRAMS!

What an idiot you are Allie Oop that you think just because you quote a Republican who states incorrect information that the rest of us Republican women will fall into line. We are NOT like Democrat women who believe everything that gets stated by someone in Congress. We actually think for ourselves and learn for ourselves. We don't follow our leaders just because they say so!

I have never understood the whole thing about women leaning more Democrat. I guess I have my father to thank for that since he always taught me to take care of myself, educate myself, question authority and never think someone else will/should take care of me and mine.; 4/7/12, 7:37 AM
ricpic said...: As long as Barry and his minions' war on the war on women works they'll keep doing it. Because women apparently are enough of a voting bloc that the dumkopfs are actually buying into Barry's con.; 4/7/12, 7:50 AM
Curious George said...: AllieOop said...
"During an interview on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voiced rare support for Planned Parenthood, noting that the organization provides much-needed preventive care to low-income women. The outgoing Texas senator also condemned a recently-enacted Texas law that prohibits Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program and providing health care services to some 130,000 women. The controversial measure has led the federal government to officially stop funding the Texas Women’s Health Program, but Gov. Rick Perry (R) insists that the state will fill the funding gap using state funds.
Hutchison criticized Perry’s decision to turn his back on the federal dollars, which she argued, provide critical care to lower-income women:
HUTCHISON: We cannot afford to lose the Medicaid funding for low income women to have health care services. We cannot. We keep turning back federal funds that every state gets and then try to find money in our budget, which is already being cut in key areas like education. I do think that the governor needs to sit down with the federal government and work it out so we can have our share — our fair share not more — of money for Medicaid to help low-income women have their health care services.
TODD: So it sounds like you think he should not be excluding Planned Parenthood?
HUTCHISON: I think Planned Parenthood does mammograms, they do so much of the health care — the preventive health care and they’re doing that, we need to provide those services, absolutely."

Yeah, Kay Bailey thinks Planned Parenthood does mammograms...because the President of PP says they do.

But that is a lie.

But what is you take Allie on the fact that although Texas had other agencies that provide the same services a PP, that they Obama administration cut $30 million form their Medicaid program because of this law. What's more important, services to poor women or Planned Parenthood?; 4/7/12, 8:10 AM
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...: No, women are not a monolithic voting bloc, much to the Donks' chagrin. They "own" single and divorced women, but are notably weaker amongst married women, especially those with children.

So the Dems' main demographic here is women who want government to take care of their needs. No sense in having to put up with a man if you can make men pay for your desires via their taxes. Married women at worst break evenly, and are often solidly in the Republican column.

The real issue isn't some putative "gender gap" which quite magically works in one direction only, because Democrats have a significant gender-gap problem with MEN even if nobody talks about that one.

People instead should really be wondering why it is that Democrats have such persistent difficulty -- even in 2008 -- appealing to the most productive demographics: men in general and women raising families.

It certainly explains, however, why every single policy proposal brought forth by Democrats is clearly designed to increase dependency, not reduce it.; 4/7/12, 8:13 AM
carrie said...: I think the war on women is a little more than a voting bloc issue. I think it is an attempt to manipulate women like me, who think of themselves as free thinkers and do not agree with the left on unlimited abortion, free birth control, gay-style recreational sex values for women, etc. that I am out of touch and that I need get on board with what a real woman would be thinking about those issues. Voting block treatment also means an indoctrination attempt to me.; 4/7/12, 8:21 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: Another blatant abuse of Obama's presidential powers: declaring a war on women without an act of Congress.; 4/7/12, 8:33 AM
MarkD said...: You expected him to crow about the unemployment rate, or Iran, or the deficit, or gas prices?

When the subject is failure, it will be changed. Look, a squirrel!; 4/7/12, 8:41 AM
SGT Ted said...: I think a 1 day waiting period for an Abortion is pefectly Constitutional and does no harm.

Good enough for the 2nd Amendment, good enough for a right that emanated from some penumbra. Right?

And so what if Planned Parenthood doesn't get access to tax money? Planned Parenthood isnt sacred and they aren't the be-all, end-all of womens health. What a bunch of bullshit. My wife has never used Planned Parenthood for any of her or our daughters health needs. They have a lady doctor for that.

Planned Parenthoods mission is an abortion mill and to distribute condoms. They are "health oriented" like a sex toy shop is "health oriented"; only if it involves sex.

There's nothing PP does that can't be handled better by regular doctors that serve poor people. Except cheap abortions.

The special pleading never ends for sexist women who think they deserve subsidies for their plumbing from the rest of us.

For far too may women, the Nation has become the Husband and the Treasury has become the joint Bank Account, to which she is entitled to draw on for whatever she wants without complaint by the husband.

When the Husband (Nation) objects to her wanting to spend the money on crap they don't need, she pouts and says "You don't love me! If you loved me, you'd give me this money! *sob*" And we're supposed to toe the line, like hubby does, and cough up the goods.

Except that we're not really married so it isn't working like they planned and now shes REALLY pissed off at "hubby" and is giving us the silent treatment and withholding sex until we see the light. It still won't work because we have no obligation to fund your genitals reacreation plan.

This female passive aggressive manipulative bullshit tring to get free tax money is very unattractive. Its also very immature and selfish.

Contraceptives are something women can handle on their own, just as has been expect from men since, ohhh, forever.

If women think they need a special club to disseminate ordinary medical information regarding reproduction planning, they can damn well pay for it themselves.; 4/7/12, 8:44 AM
Lyssa said...: carrie said: I think the war on women is a little more than a voting bloc issue. I think it is an attempt to manipulate women like me, who think of themselves as free thinkers and do not agree with the left on unlimited abortion, free birth control, gay-style recreational sex values for women, etc. that I am out of touch and that I need get on board with what a real woman would be thinking about those issues. Voting block treatment also means an indoctrination attempt to me.

This, 100%. It's embarassing, both that libs think so little of women that they expect us to fall for it, and because so many women do fall for it.; 4/7/12, 8:58 AM
Phil 314 said...: So I guess a fish DOES need a bicycle

PS 2008 seems such a long time ago.; 4/7/12, 9:00 AM
damikesc said...: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, what do they have in common?

At least 2 of the 3 are dumber than rocks.

this method is also 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

Fails, miserably, with the whole STD transmissions issue that abstinence also avoids.

I'm sure Sarah Palin taught her daughter abstince being the good mother she is. No disrespect meant toward her lovely daughter, she was a typical teen, that's all, didn't always listen to Mom and all the abstinence only Sex Ed classes in school.

So somebody who doesn't practice abstinence gets pregnant and that, somehow, violates the idea that abstinence works?

She also didn't use protection in spite of years of indoctrination. That ain't worked too well, either.

The outgoing Texas senator

Outgoing for a reason. We've already spelled out, in detail, what PP actually does.

When he talks to men does he tell them they aren't a monolithic group?

Depends on the audience. If they're black of Jewish --- then they ARE monolithic and mentioning it might shame them a bit.

It's amazing that blacks wonder why their plight is so bad and yet produce literally no reason for one side of the political equation to do anything on their behalf.

We do it anyway --- but man, we get zero benefits for doing so.

If a woman's kids are far less likely to be a net drain on society, they tend to be conservative. Those who kids will likely be a net drain on society are overwhelmingly Democrat.; 4/7/12, 9:05 AM
roesch/voltaire said...: Well it is clear from these comments that women are treated as blocks who are either dumb, soap opera watchers, or just imitations of men who should have enough sense to vote the way they are told while keeping an aspirin between their legs to ensure they do not give way to the lust of their men or themselves. Meanwhile Republican Walker signs a bill repealing equal pay for women, but hey nothing to see here women, just ignore that little attack.; 4/7/12, 9:09 AM
Rusty said...: purplepenquin said...
Condoms aren't 100% effective tho, are they? So even if they use 'em as instructed, it could still result in a pregnancy.

If taught properly, abstinence is 100% effective. So if a high-schooler in an abstinence-only sex-ed class gets pregnant, then obviously the student wasn't taught properly.

And if a student isn't taught properly, then isn't that the fault of the teacher?

Are they screwing in class?

Perhaps we should consult the parents too.

Apparently women have a difficult time controlling their urges. Perhaps they should be treated differently.; 4/7/12, 9:11 AM
shiloh said...: "Well it is clear from these comments ..."

Also true Althouse is preaching to her conservative choir which never lets her down! ie another ad nauseam anti-Obama thread to please her flock as she's still trying to "make up" lol for her "President Obama, may I give you some campaign advice?" conservative fauz pas ;) thread which really irritated her flock!

:::zzz:::; 4/7/12, 9:29 AM
damikesc said...: Well it is clear from these comments that women are treated as blocks who are either dumb, soap opera watchers, or just imitations of men who should have enough sense to vote the way they are told while keeping an aspirin between their legs to ensure they do not give way to the lust of their men or themselves. Meanwhile Republican Walker signs a bill repealing equal pay for women, but hey nothing to see here women, just ignore that little attack.

I'm not sure a post with less intellectual content could be posted.; 4/7/12, 9:33 AM
shiloh said...: "I'm not sure a post with less intellectual content could be posted."

damikesc, you sell yourself short as Fen, Jay, edutcher, alex post daily at Althouse.

take care; 4/7/12, 9:45 AM
madAsHell said...: I saw the news video from the speech. The women standing on the platform behind Obama looked like they had been there for several rehearsals, and were bored-to-tears!

So, I'm wondering. Where did he find this room full of women to burden with his l33t oration? Where they government employees?; 4/7/12, 9:50 AM
Paco Wové said...: "It is rather odd that a society that demands sexual freedom should believe that it impossible for a person to be master of his sexuality, rather than have his sexual passions control him. Apparently to be sexually free means to be a slave to sexuality"

Well-put. I have always been bewildered by those who think that self-control is simply...impossible.

I think my favorite statement of this was by Durant:

"A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked by custom, morals, or laws, he may ruin his life before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume both the individual and the group."

Of course, when I was a youth, I thought this was all bullshit decked out in flowery language. When I got older, though, I changed my tune.; 4/7/12, 10:00 AM
damikesc said...: damikesc, you sell yourself short as Fen, Jay, edutcher, alex post daily at Althouse.

Well, Allie and Love also post here and they, sometimes, exceed your level of intellectual vacuousness.; 4/7/12, 10:07 AM
shiloh said...: damikesc

Name calling is the last refuge of the out-argued!; 4/7/12, 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Shiloh said;

"Well it is clear from these comments ..."

Also true Althouse is preaching to her conservative choir which never lets her down! ie another ad nauseam anti-Obama thread to please her flock as she's still trying to "make up" lol for her "President Obama, may I give you some campaign advice?" conservative fauz pas ;) thread which really irritated her flock!

:::zzz:::
-------------------------------------

I love Althouse when she flashes us with her liberal self, I fell in love with her all over again when she did that, sigh....; 4/7/12, 10:30 AM
damikesc said...: Name calling is the last refuge of the out-argued!

Althouse ignoring you isn't exactly a source of pride for most people.; 4/7/12, 10:42 AM
shiloh said...: damikesc

Your nonsensical post aside, "most people" don't know who Althouse is.

Again, this is just a smallish political blog on the net of very little consequence other than occasional entertainment.

take care; 4/7/12, 11:06 AM
Chase said...: If I was a woman, I would be ashamed that the majority of American women of voting age lack enough intelligence to recognize a Democrat Mythical "War on Women".

That would make me so mad.

Again - scientific proof of the overall inferior general intelligence of women compared to men. There are outliers, of course. But the genetic differences are daily provable, as the preference for Obama over Romney shows that a majority of women cannot rationally analyze something as simple as how voting for Obama is clearly against theirs and their family's self-interest. And that isn't even approaching the national interest.

Again, it can't be refuted scientifically. The evidence is right there.; 4/7/12, 11:42 AM
Chase said...: And I am grateful for the opportunity to comment here, on the most read law blog in the world, and the blog where more people spend time reading than any other in the world.; 4/7/12, 11:49 AM
walter said...: "Women are not some monolithic block. Women are not an interest group," he added. "You shouldn't be treated that way."

i.e. they are victims.; 4/7/12, 11:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Good luck with that abstinence thingy. I suppose you could always sit in the back seat of every single one of your teens dates. Abstinence is only effective if it's practiced, as I said good luck with that.

I think we'd be amazed at how much self-control even the randiest teens could muster if it became clear to them that nobody else was going to foot the bill for their contraceptives, or pay the tab for the consequences of failure to use them, or the failure thereof.; 4/7/12, 12:40 PM
Mary Beth said...: Women are not some monolithic voting bloc, women are not an interest group, you shouldn’t be treated that way.

Babe, you're special. You're not like all of those other women.; 4/7/12, 1:09 PM
Synova said...: "Meanwhile Republican Walker signs a bill repealing equal pay for women, but hey nothing to see here women, just ignore that little attack."

I was ignoring it because I'm convinced that in all probability he did no such thing. I'm so used to being lied to and am almost always right when I expect it. If I were more ambitious I'd no doubt be reading through the fine print and explaining just how it is a lie, but I'm not ambitious.

But I don't think I'm wrong either. Firstly, taking the statement at face value, every word for gospel, Walker repealed an equal pay enforcement act. Since I don't know what that "act" did, I couldn't say if it was a good thing or not. It is brainless to simply assume that because equal pay is *good* that any act or law that so much as mentions it is also *good*. "Enforcement" leads me to think that it probably created an expensive, and unnecessary, bureaucracy. If so, it ought to go.

That Walker signed a repeal of this act does not say to me, at *all*, that whatever basis a woman may have to sue for damages if she's discriminated against in the workplace are gone. How does Walker or whoever voted to repeal it explain the decision? Obviously they aren't saying "we hate women" so what are they saying?

I think that it would be a good thing if more politicians would bite the bullet and do away with expensive group pandering government organizations. They invariably do nothing useful or effective beyond serving as a proxy statement of "we care". No results, but those who pass yet another bill that tax payers have to fund get to pat themselves on the back and explain who's side they are on during the next election. Better to be *seen* to care, you know.

And then it's nearly impossible to do away with the money sucking, ineffective, programs or someone will certainly explain how you repealed equal pay for women.

So bravo to Walker.; 4/7/12, 1:13 PM
Blue@9 said...: Meanwhile Republican Walker signs a bill repealing equal pay for women, but hey nothing to see here women, just ignore that little attack

Um, no, no he didn't. The law they repealed had nothing to do with guaranteeing equal pay for women.

I think we'd be amazed at how much self-control even the randiest teens could muster if it became clear to them that nobody else was going to foot the bill for their contraceptives, or pay the tab for the consequences of failure to use them, or the failure thereof

Some could. Most wouldn't. This is like showing kids "Faces of Meth" or "Reefer Madness.". Adults think this works because we're better able to process the risk/reward calculation. Kids think they're invincible, immortal, and that it can't happen to them.; 4/7/12, 5:48 PM
Jennifer said...: "obama as boyfriend" tag fits here, in my mind. "You're special! You're not like all those other girls."; 4/8/12, 2:41 AM
damikesc said...: Your nonsensical post aside, "most people" don't know who Althouse is.

You're trolling her blog.

She isn't trolling yours.

Where does that leave you?

And, honestly, nobody infantilizes women quite like feminists.; 4/8/12, 1:19 PM
shiloh said...: damikesc's continual deflections aside, let the record show he didn't disagree "most people" don't know who Althouse is.

And damikesc, it's ok to have a crush on Althouse, really! :-P Although you'll never replace her #1 sycophant, edutcher.

take care; 4/8/12, 7:46 PM