The War on Women

[Diadem]

That's fair, I suppose the Japanese and Chinese fighting in that theater would see it differently, as just an expansion of the wars they already had going. The naming convention I was referencing was one created by US/Euro-centric historians, though I was also speaking of it in reference to how it was named.

I don't think it's at all US or Euro centric to call it the second world war. The majority of nations in the world were involved in the war. The majority of the world population was vastly affected by it.

[Ghostbear]

I don't think it's at all US or Euro centric to call it the second world war. The majority of nations in the world were involved in the war. The majority of the world population was vastly affected by it.

Yeah, I wasn't saying otherwise -- just that it's a significant subset of WW2, such that they were willing to call it the "Pacific War", and that in case of that reading, it's fair to see how the Japanese and Chinese involved would see their conflict as less WW2-ish than other groups do.

[IcedT]

[...]I don't care to get dragged into the culture war any more than I have to.

When the culture war doesn't pose an imminent to your bodily autonomy, it's a very nice luxury indeed to be able to stand to the side and say that you don't want to "get dragged into it."

-_____-

I tried to make it as clear as possible that I think these bills and the larger political movement behind them is wrong and should be stopped, but that calling everything part of the "war on women" is a tactically bad choice for doing that. Case in point: the Republicans are trying to empty out a fund created by the Affordable Care Act which, from all the fact checking I've seen, has no money explicitly set aside for women's health issues, but may be used for such things at a regulator's discretion. Obviously they're targeting it because they want to make Obama give up something in exchange for the student loan funding, and if it's something tied to The Affordable Care Act that happens to have just the right amount of money in it, so much the better. But that's now being billed as part of the Republican Party's war on women.

Which is what I meant when I said "culture war." I mean that once you slap a name on things like this, like "the war on women," then the label takes on a life of its own and surpasses the actual issue in importance. And then it gets slapped onto everything the opposition does, not just the things that do harm or target women. And it all turns into an idiotic media circus while the actual issues get swept under the rug.

EDIT: To clarify further, when I say I don't want to get "sucked in" I mean I'm trying to avoid identity politics. Slogans, phrases and broad labels destroy the significance of the actual policies or positions, suppress meaningful debate and slow down meaningful action. What they do contribute to is partisan circle-jerks, and we have too many of those already. Best to keep the politics as boring and factual as possible, because the moment it becomes entertaining it ceases to be meaningful.

[Zamfir]

Enough WW2 stuff for now, back to the OT

[Ghostbear]

I tried to make it as clear as possible that I think these bills and the larger political movement behind them is wrong and should be stopped, but that calling everything part of the "war on women" is a tactically bad choice for doing that. Case in point: the Republicans are trying to empty out a fund created by the Affordable Care Act which, from all the fact checking I've seen, has no money explicitly set aside for women's health issues, but may be used for such things at a regulator's discretion. Obviously they're targeting it because they want to make Obama give up something in exchange for the student loan funding, and if it's something tied to The Affordable Care Act that happens to have just the right amount of money in it, so much the better. But that's now being billed as part of the Republican Party's war on women.

That may very well be true in this case -- it's quite possible that calling that particular action as part of a War on Women is incorrect or not really logical. That's not an argument against using "War on Women" as a label though, it's an argument against misusing that label.

Enough WW2 stuff for now, back to the OT

This reminds me, we should get a subforum for history! (We have one for everything else )

[Zamfir]

A history subforum might be a good idea, but we would need to see evidence of interest, before we take on the extra burden.

You might set up a topic to discuss a history subforum (in N&A or perhaps in some other place you consider suitable, ask the local mods first). if you can generate substantial interest it might be considered. No promises though.

[IcedT]

That may very well be true in this case -- it's quite possible that calling that particular action as part of a War on Women is incorrect or not really logical. That's not an argument against using "War on Women" as a label though, it's an argument against misusing that label.

Yeah, my argument is basically that the label's bound to be misused in ways that don't help women and that are damaging to the Democrats' credibility. I wouldn't have a problem with the label at all if people in office hadn't already demonstrated that they aren't going to use it responsibly.

[Princess Marzipan]

EDIT: To clarify further, when I say I don't want to get "sucked in" I mean I'm trying to avoid identity politics. Slogans, phrases and broad labels destroy the significance of the actual policies or positions, suppress meaningful debate and slow down meaningful action. What they do contribute to is partisan circle-jerks, and we have too many of those already. Best to keep the politics as boring and factual as possible, because the moment it becomes entertaining it ceases to be meaningful.

This is absolutely not about entertainment. You're making quite a few leaps here.

"Identity politics" - what do you mean by this? Fact is, a LOT of politics has to do with identity - sexual orientation, race, sex and gender - these "identities" are part of politics and you can't escape it. If your problem with "War on Women" is that it will be misapplied and misused, EVERYTHING in politics gets misapplied and misused. I have seen nothing that better summarizes the hypocritical trash we've seen all these red states (and at times our red House of Representatives) debate and/or pass.

[addams]

EDIT: To clarify further, when I say I don't want to get "sucked in" I mean I'm trying to avoid identity politics. Slogans, phrases and broad labels destroy the significance of the actual policies or positions, suppress meaningful debate and slow down meaningful action. What they do contribute to is partisan circle-jerks, and we have too many of those already. Best to keep the politics as boring and factual as possible, because the moment it becomes entertaining it ceases to be meaningful.

This is absolutely not about entertainment. You're making quite a few leaps here.

"Identity politics" - what do you mean by this? Fact is, a LOT of politics has to do with identity - sexual orientation, race, sex and gender - these "identities" are part of politics and you can't escape it. If your problem with "War on Women" is that it will be misapplied and misused, EVERYTHING in politics gets misapplied and misused. I have seen nothing that better summarizes the hypocritical trash we've seen all these red states (and at times our red House of Representatives) debate and/or pass.

I do not agree with the first poster. Yet; the old saying, "United we stand; Divided we fall." is a good one.

By attacking the autonomy of women, men's lives are destroyed, too.

I can go get the citation and the link. Don't make me. O.K.?
Men are so undertreated in the US. So, many have no way of receiving any medical care at all.

The 99% have a big proper point. A few people have it really good. Some people are getting by. Many people are living lives of despair.

Maybe, we could identify as human beings. Both a treasure and a responsibility to one another.

What of substance can be done to help one another? I am one of the people and I feel so powerless. I can not be the only one. Each person is fighting such a difficult battle.

Well; We all know that those people at FOX news are not fighting a difficult battle. They are having fun and getting a great deal of money to have more fun with for doing it.

[cephalopod9]

I do not agree with the first poster. Yet; the old saying, "United we stand; Divided we fall." is a good one.

By attacking the autonomy of women, men's lives are destroyed, too.

But it's still important to undermine the conversation with unspecific criticism based on your vague distaste for making a conversation about attacks on women, about women?

Are people misunderstanding the purpose of the title War on Women? It's not about encompassing the entire political atmosphere, all of the republican tactics, or even every aspect of these political moves. It's about identifying a trend. It's about acknowledging a really blatant systematic attempt to make it more difficult for women to make decisions about their bodies. I'll say again, it doesn't begin and end with making problems for women, but there's a clear, intentional movement aimed at controlling women. You really don't have to dig to find this stuff (starts video).

And, I'm not going to ask anyone to adopt this terminology, seriously, talk about it however you want, but the left frickin' needs strong, polarizing language. The right has been dominating the vocabulary in circulation in public rhetoric way too much, for way too long, and I hate it, and They will act like smug a-holes putting forward things like abortion restrictions and making an issue of of hormonal birth control, knowing exactly what they are doing, then turn around and act like any reaction or acknowledgement is creating the issue all on its own. Like "hey, let's make a big fat wedge issue out of 'pro-choice' versus 'pro-life'" ..."Gee Willikers, why are democrats on about condoms when we have an economy??". It's like ultra-hypocrisy.

[IcedT]

EDIT: To clarify further, when I say I don't want to get "sucked in" I mean I'm trying to avoid identity politics. Slogans, phrases and broad labels destroy the significance of the actual policies or positions, suppress meaningful debate and slow down meaningful action. What they do contribute to is partisan circle-jerks, and we have too many of those already. Best to keep the politics as boring and factual as possible, because the moment it becomes entertaining it ceases to be meaningful.

This is absolutely not about entertainment. You're making quite a few leaps here.

"Identity politics" - what do you mean by this? Fact is, a LOT of politics has to do with identity - sexual orientation, race, sex and gender - these "identities" are part of politics and you can't escape it. If your problem with "War on Women" is that it will be misapplied and misused, EVERYTHING in politics gets misapplied and misused. I have seen nothing that better summarizes the hypocritical trash we've seen all these red states (and at times our red House of Representatives) debate and/or pass.

I think I'm just really pessimistic about the average voter's ability to make political decisions in a reasonable way. Based on personal experience and a few studies I've read, when you focus on the details, the concrete specifics, people (other than religious zealots or Randian assholes) tend to agree mostly with the left. When you make things about generalities or labels, they reflexively swing right. Basically, I think that if you try to engage voters on a gut level, you're handing them over to the Republicans, because their platform is 90% gut feeling.

Maybe this attitude is incorrect or unreasonable, but it's what my experience has born out.

[induction]

You mean labels like 'religious zealots' and 'Randian assholes'?

In my experience, most people think that their positions are reasoned and concrete, and that those who disagree are misled by emotion. It seems that there are plenty of irrational folks on both the left and the right, and they are equally swayed by generalities. If I had to guess, I'd say that, on average, gut level approaches work better on the left for younger people and better on the right for older people. But I haven't read any studies about it, so who knows.

[Princess Marzipan]

After re-reading my post in light of responses, I realized I left out some of my reasoning. When I claim that identities are an inescapable part of politics, I'm specifically referring to the fact that so much legislation we're seeing has a sole or predominant effect on one of those identities.

The fight against gay marriage is a fight against those with certain sexual orientations, and the fight against abortion and contraception is a fight against women who want the freedom to choose those, for others if not themselves. In those cases, homosexuals and women can't just escape the identity issue, because the issue is about or directly related to their identity. In terms of race, we haven't seen anything 100% explicit, but we have seen Arizona's SB1070 bill which made being Hispanic probable cause for violation of immigration law. Plus, there's all the laws and systems that disproportionately affect non-whites negatively and the accompanying lack of giving-a-shit from legislators whose job is in fact, ostensibly, to give some shits.

A straight white Christian male (not that I know if you're any of those, but your attitude leads to hypothesize that that's least 75% accurate) doesn't feel the negative effects of these policy outcomes very heavily on his own. It gives him a very comfortable position from which he extrapolates outward and assumes "Well, I'm able to look at these issues without getting all worked up over them, why can't everybody else?"

I think I'm just really pessimistic about the average voter's ability to make political decisions in a reasonable way. Based on personal experience and a few studies I've read, when you focus on the details, the concrete specifics, people (other than religious zealots or Randian assholes) tend to agree mostly with the left. When you make things about generalities or labels, they reflexively swing right. Basically, I think that if you try to engage voters on a gut level, you're handing them over to the Republicans, because their platform is 90% gut feeling.

Point me to ANYWHERE in this country where you can actually have a public conversation about concrete specifics. I guarantee you'll be pointing me to a very tiny group with a very tiny audience.

What you are doing here is concern trolling. You're concerned the War on Women label will lend credence to the right. Well, NOT using the War on Women label seems to have lent them some level of credence, so if we're fucked either way, let's just call a spade a spade, and a connected-if-not-coordinated barrage of legislative efforts which have the sole effect of harming womens' individual agency a War on Women, in keeping with labelling other such legislative barrages we call "wars." Unless it's only okay to call it a war if the people introducing, voting for, and defending the abhorrent legislation agree?

[Shro]

but we have seen Arizona's SB1070 bill which made being Hispanic brown probable cause for violation of immigration law.

I guess "non-white" would be more accurate/PC.

/is brown and not Hispanic
//takes no offense to the term "brown"
///knows she'd be stopped in Arizona for having dark skin and a funny name.

[Princess Marzipan]

but we have seen Arizona's SB1070 bill which made being Hispanic brown probable cause for violation of immigration law.

I guess "non-white" would be more accurate/PC.

True. I went with Hispanic because the bill was targeted at illegal immigration, which in Arizona means Mexicans. But yeah, so much outcry over what goes into the assumption that someone might not be here legally, and nothing to alleviate concerns of the bill making racial profiling practically mandatory.

[IcedT]

You mean labels like 'religious zealots' and 'Randian assholes'?

I'm aware of the irony, but I was trying to keep things brief. You can swap those out with "those with strong religious-fundamentalist leanings" and "those who advance lassez-faire as an ethical position and not just means to an end" if you prefer.

In my experience, most people think that their positions are reasoned and concrete, and that those who disagree are misled by emotion. It seems that there are plenty of irrational folks on both the left and the right, and they are equally swayed by generalities. If I had to guess, I'd say that, on average, gut level approaches work better on the left for younger people and better on the right for older people. But I haven't read any studies about it, so who knows.

This is probably true on the national scale. I've spent my whole life in red states so I'm biased by the experience of seeing a lot of reactionary right-wingers and relatively few reactionary left-wingers (reactionary here meaning, they do it because they hate the other guys, not because they have their own firm principles). If I spent more time in blue states you might hear me complaining about how reflexively liberal people are. I'm sure I would've hated dealing with the legendary 60's socialist intelligentsia.

The main study that comes to mind is one that tested people's responses to the content of the Affordable Care Act, compared to their response to the bill as a whole. When the bill was described in detail a majority were in favor, but most people were opposed to "The Affordable Care Act." I can dig it up if you're interested in reading it. And then, of course, there's the fact that people continue to support the Republicans even though so many of the bills they advance contain ludicrously unpopular positions (like denying access to birth control, allowing doctors to lie to patients, cutting services to pay for additional tax cuts to the rich, oil subsidies, and a slew of other things that most conservatives don't support if you ask them about it).

After re-reading my post in light of responses, I realized I left out some of my reasoning. When I claim that identities are an inescapable part of politics, I'm specifically referring to the fact that so much legislation we're seeing has a sole or predominant effect on one of those identities.

The fight against gay marriage is a fight against those with certain sexual orientations, and the fight against abortion and contraception is a fight against women who want the freedom to choose those, for others if not themselves. In those cases, homosexuals and women can't just escape the identity issue, because the issue is about or directly related to their identity. In terms of race, we haven't seen anything 100% explicit, but we have seen Arizona's SB1070 bill which made being Hispanic probable cause for violation of immigration law. Plus, there's all the laws and systems that disproportionately affect non-whites negatively and the accompanying lack of giving-a-shit from legislators whose job is in fact, ostensibly, to give some shits.

A straight white Christian male (not that I know if you're any of those, but your attitude leads to hypothesize that that's least 75% accurate) doesn't feel the negative effects of these policy outcomes very heavily on his own. It gives him a very comfortable position from which he extrapolates outward and assumes "Well, I'm able to look at these issues without getting all worked up over them, why can't everybody else?"

I should probably apologize for not making myself totally clear, too. When I said I avoid identity politics, I didn't mean to say that there aren't groups that are explicitly targeted or disproportionately affected. I'm aware of just how much prejudice there is and what an uphill battle it is for many people. My little brother is gay and pursuing a military career- even a few years ago he would've had to keep his orientation a secret or be thrown out. In most parts of the country there are still huge obstacles to him starting a family and living a good life. So I don't mean to be dismissive of the fact that people are often targeted because of their race or religion or sex or whatever other group they're affiliated with. I mean that, as much as I support the Democrats because I think they have the better policies right now, I never want to become a reflexive Democrat. Somebody who is deeply and unabashedly biased in how he looks at the political divide in this country. I've had to deal with too many people who are blind to their own party's faults or ignorant of the other party's good qualities. And as a moderate liberal who has to deal with some very conservative people, I spend a lot of time trying to get my ideas across in a diplomatic way, where they can get past people's anti-liberal cognitive defenses and maybe sink in. And in the environment I'm in, going on about "the war against women" isn't something that's going to score me any points or change anyone's mind. Your situation may be very different, I'm just saying that I'm personally ambivalent about it. I'm not trying to dissuade you or anyone else from calling this whatever you want to, that's just my own personal thoughts on the matter.

For the record, I am straight, white and male, and though I'm not christian my extended family is so I do get the social benefits of not being a religious outsider. And I spent 16 years of my life in Arizona and keep up with the politics as best as I can- the place is a constant embarrassment for all of us. Hopefully we can get Carmona elected so he can start turning things around.

[Princess Marzipan]

Well, if someone's just going to run around saying WAR ON WOMEN, WAR ON WOMEN, WAR ON WOMEN, yeah, I'm in agreement - not useful.

But even with those who would dismiss it, I imagine it can still serve as the jumping off point of a conversation if both sides want one. Whether it's 100% accurate as a label is a related but separate discussion from why people opposed to the recent policy rush are using the term. "Okay, you don't think there's a War on Women. Here's why some people DO, though:".

On the ACA issue, where people agree with the policies but not the named bill: I'm comfortable blaming the Republican party for that, and to a lesser extent the Democratic party for failing to make their damn case.
Using the War on Women label does not make you a reactionary in and of itself. As long as you're consciously trying, you can mostly avoid that. It comes down to whether you agree or disagree that we're seeing a disturbing trend in Republican legislation. Whether it's intentional, organized top down or bottom up, or in good or bad faith are all immaterial to the fact that when you look at the trees of individual anti-abortion bills and the like, a disturbing forest begins to take shape. It's important to see the trees and realize that in the end the forest is only individual trees, but it's just as important to realize "Hey, there's a forest here!" At a certain point, maintaining that there is no forest and ONLY a bunch of trees that just HAPPEN to be near each other becomes rather obtuse.

Reactionary politics is bad in the sense of politicians abandoning their own ideas JUST BECAUSE someone in the party is now pushing for them. But since the War on Women is a pattern of REPUBLICAN legislative efforts, what response ISN'T reactionary? Whether you agree with the moniker or not, even if you think it's a pattern and not even a pattern that suggests anything meaningful...regardless, any reaction is, y'know, "reactionary", even a perfect one.