People easily stupider than Todd Akin

[Perd Hapley]

I've been hearing about this on the radio all day. Apparently, the best way to fight back against the fictitious "War on Women," and force sexist Republican men to respect you, is to dress like female genitalia.

http://jezebel.com/5938249/protesters-dressed-as-giant-vaginas-greet-republican-national-convention-attendees


Let's watch out, though. They might decide to really show us that they demand to be respected for their minds, and not just for their bodies, by dressing like a pair of healthy bosoms. 

[MillCreek]

It would be more accurate to say protestors dressed up as giant labias, but maybe that doesn't have the same impact.

[Jamie B]

It's always nice to see an inappropriate remark met with pure stupidity.

[RoadKingLarry]

It would be more accurate to say protestors dressed up as giant labias, but maybe that doesn't have the same impact.

I doubt any of them know the difference.

[roo_ster]

I've been hearing about this on the radio all day. Apparently, the best way to fight back against the fictitious "War on Women," and force sexist Republican men to respect you, is to dress like female genitalia.

http://jezebel.com/5938249/protesters-dressed-as-giant-vaginas-greet-republican-national-convention-attendees


Let's watch out, though. They might decide to really show us that they demand to be respected for their minds, and not just for their bodies, by dressing like a pair of healthy bosoms. 

Obviously, they are the vanguard of the revulvalution.

[Waitone]

Obviously, they are the vanguard of the revulvalution.

Tweeeeet!  Personal pun foul.
You!  To the showers.

[longeyes]

The war on women may be fictitious but the war on men--certain kinds of men--isn't.

The advance guard of the Left seems to be The Single Woman.  No society in history has been based on the needs and desires of single women; this one won't be either, not for long.

[RevDisk]

The war on women may be fictitious but the war on men--certain kinds of men--isn't.

The advance guard of the Left seems to be The Single Woman.  No society in history has been based on the needs and desires of single women; this one won't be either, not for long.

"The War on Women is a myth, but the War on Men is not."

Okey. First off, there is an ounce of truth in both. Yea, Republicans are not recently known for being supportive of women in general. They have been trying to cut funding to a lot of women related funding issues. If they actually were unilaterally cutting across the board, fine. But when you make significant cuts in certain areas, and less in others. Gee, folks think you might be trying to advocate something.

I won't touch on abortion. Because honestly, the argument is more annoying than the subject. Everyone feels very strongly about it. And whatever your opinion is, I will without a single quibble agree with you entirely if you do not subject me to it. However, I will remark that the manner in which Republicans have pursued the matter can lend a feeling that they care more about control than the principles involved. I'm not saying that is or is not the case. Just the perception that has arisen.

In short, there is not an organized anti-women movement within the Republicans. But they do not go out of their way to counter that perception. Mostly. Some Republicans have been very verbally supportive of that perception, usually by sounding like a complete tool. Akin is not the first. Stephen Freind and Henry Aldridge made significant worse comments.

As for the "war on men", again, ounce of truth. A lot of child custody laws are biased in favor of women. But not all. I learned recently, that often there is no custodial difference between a child from consensual conception and rape. That is flat out insanity.

From my outside perspective, I don't think the Republican party in general is hostile to women. Certainly, plenty of its members and prominent speakers are by their own words. At best, they are indifferent. Certainly far from supportive, there is amble proof from the GOP legislative record that they're more hostile than supportive. Some of it is merely PR, some is ideology, some is that certain folks are just plain tools.

[MechAg94]

Okey. First off, there is an ounce of truth in both. Yea, Republicans are not recently known for being supportive of women in general. They have been trying to cut funding to a lot of women related funding issues. If they actually were unilaterally cutting across the board, fine. But when you make significant cuts in certain areas, and less in others. Gee, folks think you might be trying to advocate something.

I guess you miss the point.  The reason many of those programs need to be cut from the FedGov is because they are often completely useless and accomplish nothing.  Cutting pork spending that is used to gain favor with special interest groups should not be construed as advocating anything but good government. 

I guess you also fall into the groups that think Republicans wanted to starve children when they talked about cutting federally funded school lunch programs. 

[Perd Hapley]

BS, Rev. The Republican War on Women is just like their War on Any Minority Group. The various wars amount to nothing more than failing to agree with the politic goals the left thinks women and minorities should endorse. The "perception" may exist that Republicans don't care about women, but you know perfectly well that is an artifact of the Left. The media could just as easily create such a perception about lefties, if they swung that way.

[RevDisk]

BS, Rev. The Republican War on Women is just like their War on Any Minority Group. The various wars amount to nothing more than failing to agree with the politic goals the left thinks women and minorities should endorse. The "perception" may exist that Republicans don't care about women, but you know perfectly well that is an artifact of the Left. The media could just as easily create such a perception about lefties, if they swung that way.

I guess you miss the point.  The reason many of those programs need to be cut from the FedGov is because they are often completely useless and accomplish nothing.  Cutting pork spending that is used to gain favor with special interest groups should not be construed as advocating anything but good government.  

I guess you also fall into the groups that think Republicans wanted to starve children when they talked about cutting federally funded school lunch programs.  

*shrug*

Hence why I went out of my way to mention a lot of it was perception based. But I did expect folks to automatically assume that was my opinion, even if I clearly explained it at the end. Also, reactions like these are why there is a perception issue.

I look forward to more statements of guessing or assertions of my beliefs. I'll be eating a light meal and then going to the gym for a while. Your guesses and assertions will be graded while consuming excellent beer afterwards. Bonus points to MechAg94 for "for the children", but half are redacted because of a lack of Hitler/Nazi and Stalin/communist references. Further points deducted for lack of bacon references. Sorry, about that, but 'ems the rules. This is the Internet, and we have rules.

And.... Go!

[lupinus]

Only a bunch of pussies would need to protest in costume.

[longeyes]

"The War on Women is a myth, but the War on Men is not."

Okey. First off, there is an ounce of truth in both. Yea, Republicans are not recently known for being supportive of women in general. They have been trying to cut funding to a lot of women related funding issues. If they actually were unilaterally cutting across the board, fine. But when you make significant cuts in certain areas, and less in others. Gee, folks think you might be trying to advocate something.

I won't touch on abortion. Because honestly, the argument is more annoying than the subject. Everyone feels very strongly about it. And whatever your opinion is, I will without a single quibble agree with you entirely if you do not subject me to it. However, I will remark that the manner in which Republicans have pursued the matter can lend a feeling that they care more about control than the principles involved. I'm not saying that is or is not the case. Just the perception that has arisen.

In short, there is not an organized anti-women movement within the Republicans. But they do not go out of their way to counter that perception. Mostly. Some Republicans have been very verbally supportive of that perception, usually by sounding like a complete tool. Akin is not the first. Stephen Freind and Henry Aldridge made significant worse comments.

As for the "war on men", again, ounce of truth. A lot of child custody laws are biased in favor of women. But not all. I learned recently, that often there is no custodial difference between a child from consensual conception and rape. That is flat out insanity.

From my outside perspective, I don't think the Republican party in general is hostile to women. Certainly, plenty of its members and prominent speakers are by their own words. At best, they are indifferent. Certainly far from supportive, there is amble proof from the GOP legislative record that they're more hostile than supportive. Some of it is merely PR, some is ideology, some is that certain folks are just plain tools.

I wasn't referring to the Republican Party, I was referring to the broader culture and the historical implications of what seems to be going on.  You can measure in ounces, some of us will measure in pounds.  

Misogyny is all too real; ditto male chauvinism.  But so is the pervasive "feminization" of the culture.  It's not a simple black and white thing, and I am not pretending it is, what I am saying is that the "sexual war" isn't just media hype or manipulation.  Our "economy" is increasingly a "consumer" economy; that means, increasingly, woman-driven and, more all the time, child/teenage driven.  Not important?  I beg to differ.  Is production important?  Is risk-taking?  And maybe you believe that our global enemy right now--I mean radical Islam--is just our antagonist by accident and that our views of men's and women's roles are just coincidental?

[Gewehr98]

But I did expect folks to automatically assume that was my opinion, even if I clearly explained it at the end. Also, reactions like these are why there is a perception issue.

I look forward to more statements of guessing or assertions of my beliefs. I'll be eating a light meal and then going to the gym for a while. Your guesses and assertions will be graded while consuming excellent beer afterwards. Bonus points to MechAg94 for "for the children", but half are redacted because of a lack of Hitler/Nazi and Stalin/communist references. Further points deducted for lack of bacon references. Sorry, about that, but 'ems the rules. This is the Internet, and we have rules.

And.... Go!

Say what?  If you don't want people to struggle trying to figure out where exactly you stand on an issue, don't camouflage it so much that they do.

I'm certain you're not playing obtuse for the sake of having fun at other's expense so you can mock or otherwise get some smug in, right?  Otherwise we should probably have an offline PM discussion.

This forum is Oleg's social experiment.  I'm not so sure creating a playing field for head games was part of his original concept.  Talking proudly elsewhere about pinching a steaming pile in an APS thread won't garner you many extra Christmas cards, either.

We all know how to play nice.  I didn't enjoy finding the discussion elsewhere which led me to this thread.  I honestly hope I don't see something like that again.

[Perd Hapley]

*shrug*

Hence why I went out of my way to mention a lot of it was perception based. But I did expect folks to automatically assume that was my opinion, even if I clearly explained it at the end. Also, reactions like these are why there is a perception issue.

I look forward to more statements of guessing or assertions of my beliefs. I'll be eating a light meal and then going to the gym for a while. Your guesses and assertions will be graded while consuming excellent beer afterwards. Bonus points to MechAg94 for "for the children", but half are redacted because of a lack of Hitler/Nazi and Stalin/communist references. Further points deducted for lack of bacon references. Sorry, about that, but 'ems the rules. This is the Internet, and we have rules.

And.... Go!

Yawn. You claimed that you didn't buy into the War on Women hoax, then admitted that you do. I didn't have to guess about any of that.

Happy grading!