The War on Women

[cephalopod9]

Some events going on this Saturday, it's short notice and I can't tell how well organized this is.
Here's the video that brought me there. (it's full of rubber penises, so you shouldn't watch it in places where people who disapprove of rubber penises might see it).

[zmic]

With regards to "women being coerced in to abortions by their doctors" I'm going to say [citation needed].

I don't think anybody in this thread is claiming that. I'm more concerned about coercion from family/SOs/employers.

I think there is a good chance that more women are intimidated or even coerced into having a abortion than into not having an abortion. It will take a courageous researcher to burn his fingers and possibly his career on such a touchy subject.

[sophyturtle]

Some events going on this Saturday, it's short notice and I can't tell how well organized this is.
Here's the video that brought me there. (it's full of rubber penises, so you shouldn't watch it in places where people who disapprove of rubber penises might see it).

This is a thing I am doing tomorrow! I am trying to bring as many people as possible.

[Wodashin]

You know, if women were smart, they'd vote these jackholes out of office. (I know I plan to.)

I mean, these idiots are trying to make your life worse, and you want to re-elect them?

Old post but:

Judging from this and your posts explaining it, I know this is just awkward wording rather than you saying women are dumb, but language is important! Your statement is offensive in this backhanded not-quite-misogynist-but-still-sexist way. Like complimenting a black guy on how articulate he is, or saying "it's not all about being thin, I like girls with curves!" We understand the intent is good, but be careful!

Firstly, women don't vote as a bloc. There are republican women. Even misogynist women. That's not even them being dumb. Smart people can be wrong, even extremely wrong.

Secondly, your comment carries the tone of "listen up ladies, while a dude tells you how to help yourselves." Again, not intended, I know.

It may seem small, but it's pervasive. Sure, the hardcore sexist remarks are more flagrant and actual discrimination in pay or services or whatever is more harmful, but it's the little, usually unintentional, often well-meaning, things embedded in our culture.

If women didn't vote as a bloc in any capacity whatsoever, there'd be no point in looking at which candidate gets the woman vote, nor any reason to pander. It's obviously not akin to other, more concise demographics, but to say that there simply isn't anything at all going on in that regard is disingenuous.

[sophyturtle]

Oh sure, they are willing to not fuck over old students as long as they get to fuck over women. I mean, it's not like cancer screenings are that important right? And this certainly should not be seen as an attack on women.
Those oil companies just need more protection of their money than women need to be able to care for their bodies.

grumble bumble

[Thesh]

Oh sure, they are willing to not fuck over old students as long as they get to fuck over women. I mean, it's not like cancer screenings are that important right? And this certainly should not be seen as an attack on women.
Those oil companies just need more protection of their money than women need to be able to care for their bodies.

grumble bumble

Look, if you find a lump, you shouldn't have been touching yourself in the first place.
So I ripped off Bill Maher, sue me.

[Heisenberg]

Oh sure, they are willing to not fuck over old students as long as they get to fuck over women. I mean, it's not like cancer screenings are that important right? And this certainly should not be seen as an attack on women.
Those oil companies just need more protection of their money than women need to be able to care for their bodies.

grumble bumble

It's not an attack on women because it's not an attack on women. The Public Health Fund was robbed of $5 billion for a payroll tax deduction recently and nobody said it was an attack on women (because it wasn't). Now it's being robbed of $6 billion and Democrats are saying "We MIGHT HAVE used that money for breast cancer screenings, so therefore you all hate women."

I'm all for equal rights, but this is an example of Congressional Democrats lying to women to try to corral their votes.

[Garm]

Oh sure, they are willing to not fuck over old students as long as they get to fuck over women. I mean, it's not like cancer screenings are that important right? And this certainly should not be seen as an attack on women.
Those oil companies just need more protection of their money than women need to be able to care for their bodies.

grumble bumble

It's not an attack on women because it's not an attack on women. The Public Health Fund was robbed of $5 billion for a payroll tax deduction recently and nobody said it was an attack on women (because it wasn't). Now it's being robbed of $6 billion and Democrats are saying "We MIGHT HAVE used that money for breast cancer screenings, so therefore you all hate women."

I'm all for equal rights, but this is an example of Congressional Democrats lying to women to try to corral their votes.

It certainly does seem like the dems are trying to shoehorn this into a narrow narrative. I think they ought to go big. Point out that the alternatives to gutting this public health fund are to close some tax loopholes that primarily favor the rich, or to cut a bit out of the Oil subsidies. Why just limit this to the war on women. This is about the GOP continuing to obstruct anything that doesn't favor their redistributive economic policies. If Boehner sees paying for preventative care for the public as a "slush fund" then the dems ought to call him on it.

[mike-l]

Linkto the 5 billion. It does seem like the two events are pretty much identical but one is being paraded as a war on women and the other not.

Having said that, republicans fighting against preventative measures sounds awfully familiar in the context of women's rights.

[cephalopod9]

It's not an attack on women because it's not an attack on women. The Public Health Fund was robbed of $5 billion for a payroll tax deduction recently and nobody said it was an attack on women (because it wasn't). Now it's being robbed of $6 billion and Democrats are saying "We MIGHT HAVE used that money for breast cancer screenings, so therefore you all hate women."

I'm all for equal rights, but this is an example of Congressional Democrats lying to women to try to corral their votes.

Does this actually make sense to you?
Are you arguing because some of these things don't only effect women there's not a pointed and systematic attack on women's autonomy and rights? Because guess what? All of the aspects of the War on Women affect men, and families, and children.
When one political party has so thoroughly and enthusiastically dedicated itself to the disenfranchisement and degradation of women, it's not a stretch, it's not a flight of fancy, it's not a fabrication to see acts that wouldn't otherwise be charged, as connected to other attacks in the context of that campaign.
Republicans have said over and over again that they're all about restricting access to abortion and cutting women's health care, it's not the democrats creating the frame through which this move is perceived.

Some events going on this Saturday, it's short notice and I can't tell how well organized this is.
Here's the video that brought me there. (it's full of rubber penises, so you shouldn't watch it in places where people who disapprove of rubber penises might see it).

This is a thing I am doing tomorrow! I am trying to bring as many people as possible.

How did this go?
It looks like there was some neat stuff.

[Chen]

Does this actually make sense to you?
Are you arguing because some of these things don't only effect women there's not a pointed and systematic attack on women's autonomy and rights? Because guess what? All of the aspects of the War on Women affect men, and families, and children.
When one political party has so thoroughly and enthusiastically dedicated itself to the disenfranchisement and degradation of women, it's not a stretch, it's not a flight of fancy, it's not a fabrication to see acts that wouldn't otherwise be charged, as connected to other attacks in the context of that campaign.
Republicans have said over and over again that they're all about restricting access to abortion and cutting women's health care, it's not the democrats creating the frame through which this move is perceived.

Still its pretty disingenuous to frame this cut as part of a "war on women" when the previous cut that made it through the Republican House, the Democratic Senate AND the president was not framed as such.

[addams]

It's not an attack on women because it's not an attack on women. The Public Health Fund was robbed of $5 billion for a payroll tax deduction recently and nobody said it was an attack on women (because it wasn't). Now it's being robbed of $6 billion and Democrats are saying "We MIGHT HAVE used that money for breast cancer screenings, so therefore you all hate women."

I'm all for equal rights, but this is an example of Congressional Democrats lying to women to try to corral their votes.

Does this actually make sense to you?
Are you arguing because some of these things don't only effect women there's not a pointed and systematic attack on women's autonomy and rights? Because guess what? All of the aspects of the War on Women affect men, and families, and children.
When one political party has so thoroughly and enthusiastically dedicated itself to the disenfranchisement and degradation of women, it's not a stretch, it's not a flight of fancy, it's not a fabrication to see acts that wouldn't otherwise be charged, as connected to other attacks in the context of that campaign.
Republicans have said over and over again that they're all about restricting access to abortion and cutting women's health care, it's not the democrats creating the frame through which this move is perceived.

Some events going on this Saturday, it's short notice and I can't tell how well organized this is.
Here's the video that brought me there. (it's full of rubber penises, so you shouldn't watch it in places where people who disapprove of rubber penises might see it).

This is a thing I am doing tomorrow! I am trying to bring as many people as possible.

How did this go?
It looks like there was some neat stuff.

Very nice, Americans. Way to go! I am so sorry that you are fighting this battle all over again.
Of course, it is not a battle for the womb. At some point it is a battle for all people to have rational compassionate care.
United you stand. How can you get the 'Good Old Boy Insurance Companies' out of health care and get it into the hands of the people that do the work and need the care?

Of, For and By the People. Right? Of course, you need qualified people. You could afford them if you cut out the middle man. Right? That is a lot of money.

The People have hand made signs. The Power Brokers have mass media.

Did you have fun?
If, you stood together for one another and had a good time, then, that is a win.

[sophyturtle]

It was a pretty great rally. The author of Our Bodies Ourselves spoke and there was music and things. There was this great sculpture of the Statue of Liberty in chains and bands and things.

I guess if the stuff going on politically were limited to this one cut for cancer screenings I could see being called an alarmist. When you factor in the record number of attacks on reproductive rights, and all the other funding slashes to rape crisis survivors and other programs for women and families it seems like one might need to be a bit slow to not put everything together.

[Heisenberg]

Why do you think there are a record number of attacks on women's liberty? The "Top Ten" quoted in the OP are fairly trivial or have been soundly defeated:

1. Blunt Amendment - Defeated
2. Congressional Panel - Trivial, now irrelevant after Obama's changes
3. Komen - Private Organization, now reversed
4. Limbaugh Being an Asshole - Old News
5. Trans Vaginal Ultrasounds - Defeated
6. Rick Parry - Irrelevant
7. Fox News Being an Asshole - Old News
8. Santorum - Irrelevant
9. Santorum - Irrelevant
10. Romney Is An Idiot - Unsurprising

If you want to say that Limbaugh and Fox News are being assholes to women, that's fine, but that's not anything new. And we now know that idiots like Rick Santorum won't be shaping policy in the US. In the meantime, the idea that the Komen Foundation is part of some hateful conspiracy against women is totally untrue and actually is damaging to the many women they support.

[Griffin]

I'm pretty sure the whole Komen thing was due to the fault of a single person in the Komen organization. So, no, I don't think it reflects all others that work with the organization, but it does reflect poorly on the organization.

And what about all the laws passed recently to restrict a womans right to choose, mandatory waiting periods, invasive medical procedures, etc. and so on?

And just because there's a "war on women" doesn't mean the aggressors are winning. Just like the war on drugs.

[Heisenberg]

That's fair. And really, the Limbaugh thing seemed to turn out rather badly for him, with all the sponsors pulling their ads. I think I just see this as isolated idiots being shouted down by the rational masses, rather than any sort of organized campaign.

[Princess Marzipan]

There's no "official" War on Women, no, because any political party admitting such would lose a sizable portion of their female voting base.

But what are the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty if not emotionally-charged titles for narratives used to justify policy decisions and new legislation? War on Women is an apt description for what we've been seeing - the only difference is that it appears to being implemented from the bottom up rather than the top down.

[Ghostbear]

Why do you think there are a record number of attacks on women's liberty? The "Top Ten" quoted in the OP are fairly trivial or have been soundly defeated:

1. Blunt Amendment - Defeated
[...]
6. Rick Parry - Irrelevant
[...]
9. Santorum - Irrelevant
10. Romney Is An Idiot - Unsurprising

1. The blunt amendment got 48 votes in the senate -- it reflect's the policy and goals of those 48 senators who voted for it, 45 of whom were republicans.

6. I'm not exactly sure how you can call the governor of the 2nd largest state in the nation "irrelevant" -- Texas has a population of 25.6 million people, 50.4% of whom are women. Decisions that affect them don't seem like a good candidate for irrelevancy to me in the least.

9 & 10. The presumptive nominee and the runner up to one of the two mainstream political parties in this country are not "irrelevant". If Romney wins, he'll be very relevant. All of the votes Santorum got, despite or in spite of his positions, lets other republicans see "hey, if I hold positions that are negative for women, I can still get millions of people to vote for me, even with a terribly run campaign!" -- that's not irrelevant at all.

I wouldn't even say that there's much of an argument for many of the others you labelled as irrelevant being so -- Limbaugh holds a lot of influence in conservative circles, the congressional panel was a reflection of their approach to this issue ("women's opinions are irrelevant on issues that affect women"), the ultrasound bill came fairly close to passing (and likely would have, if not for the furor over it) and reflects the general attitude of inconveniencing and shaming women who want abortions so much that they don't (essentially attempting to make it "technically" legal but in practice so covered in red tape and inconvenience that nobody would do so), and Fox News is, I believe, the largest news company in the country. I don't think those can just be hand-waved away.

I also think people are missing a big disconnect here. The republican party, by talking points, is the party of "less government, more freedom". Except all of these bills, policy positions, and so on, are the exact opposite of that. They're willing to completely abandon their supposed political philosophy to accomplish this issue -- it makes it easier to paint it as a distinct war, because they're going in the opposite direction (and as fast as they can at that) of where they say we should be going, and pretty much the only issue where they do that on with such fervor and dedication is issues that relate to women and women's rights.

[addams]

Yep. It is Dickwellian.

It is like a religious war. There are many women on the other team.
It is not a male vs female issue.

It is a freedom to personal private decisions made by people for themselves vs medical care withheld because it makes more money.

Men are caught in this battle, too. It is, just, not as obvious.
Nationalized Health Care is the only sane choice.

I think the reason that abortion is used to keep the attention is because it is so easy to shame women that want abortions. The men in the US need care medical, too.

Men need Mental Health Care. Men need cancer screening. Men need sex ed. Men have needs, too. To make us fight separate battles keeps us from standing together.

Medical care that gets a thumbs up or a thumbs down based on what kind of insurance you have is wrong. To with hold medical care from any of our people is wrong. Our people are poor and getting poorer. Poor men are living aware beings that experience suffering.

In the best of all possible worlds our men could go to Planned Parenthood for care, also.

The fricking hypocrites! They say freedom. Freedom for who?

[cephalopod9]

Still its pretty disingenuous to frame this cut as part of a "war on women" when the previous cut that made it through the Republican House, the Democratic Senate AND the president was not framed as such

Fun fact: the OP actually put off using the terminology "War on women" because she doesn't care for it, but eventually felt it necessary to show support for and allegiance with the people and groups who do use the phrase.
It goes a lot deeper than just "we don't like women, so we're going to do these terrible things to hurt them".

There's no "official" War on Women, no, because any political party admitting such would lose a sizable portion of their female voting base.

This morning I caught part of a conversation between Diane Rhem and some (awful) people arguing that it was unfair for democrats to make republicans look bad for opposing The Violence Against Women Act. Here's a wacky idea: don't oppose VAWA. Because, if your political beefs are more important than getting help to victims of domestic violence, it is a completely fair characterization to say so.

Why do you think there are a record number of attacks on women's liberty? The "Top Ten" quoted in the OP are fairly trivial or have been soundly defeated:

1,2: Yeah, I don't think that trivial little The Catholic Church just got over their contraception hang ups because the Blunt Ammendment was voted down.
4. Do you remember that Sandra Fluke wasn't a random target, but was made relevant by her initially obstructed, but eventual testimony before congress? As part of the aforementioned discussion about whether employers get all the religious freedoms, or if recipients of the health care the provide get a say in how they use it? (And did you know this is still making her a target for mockery in and out of the media?)
5,6: Did you know Rick Perry is still governor of Texas? Where such transvaginal ultrasounds are mandatory? A lot of states have tried to pass mandatory ultrasound laws. Even if everyone of them fails, that's still an attack.

I think I just see this as isolated idiots being shouted down by the rational masses, rather than any sort of organized campaign.

It is really far from random, and they're not being shouted down.

[Griffin]

It is really far from random, and they're not being shouted down.

A few of them are, but for every one we strike shout down, three more seem to take their place.

[Diadem]

I love Heisenberg's logic. Because some of the anti-women proposals were defeated there's no war on women?

I guess that means Napoleon never invaded Russia, Hitler never invaded Poland and the US was never in Vietnam.

[Thesh]

There isn't a war on women, there is a war on secularism. What you call the war on women, is really just part of the theater on sex overall. Abortion and birth control are just two battles in that theater, the battle for gay marriage is there as well (although this is territory that the religious traditionally held that is being captured by the progressives). The goal isn't to force women to have kids, it's too stop people from having "sinful" sex.

Sex isn't the only theater in this war, either; there is an anti-intellectual theater, where opposing sides for the origins of the universe and life are entrenched in a stalemate.

[Ghostbear]

It is like a religious war. There are many women on the other team.
It is not a male vs female issue.

Yeah, a lot of women will vote for these policies because they agree with the morality that is imposed. A lot of men are opposed to those policies (I believe quite a few of the people posting such in this very thread are male -- I know I am, at least) as well. It makes it rather frustrating when people try to paint those policies as not being bad for women on the whole, just because x% of women support it.

The fricking hypocrites! They say freedom. Freedom for who?

Freedom for them to dictate everyone else's morality.

There isn't a war on women, there is a war on secularism.

The problem is that while that might be true in a broad sense, the reality is that the current phase of their war against secularism is policies and laws that disproportionately affect women. And it still misses the general attitude exposed here in situations like the all-male congressional hearing, the attitude of "Women's opinions don't really matter". Maybe "Battle on Women" would have been more accurate, being a subsection of that greater war on secularism, but that just sounds odd, and since this is, at the moment, more or less the only front...

[Thesh]

Maybe "Battle on Women" would have been more accurate, being a subsection of that greater war on secularism, but that just sounds odd, and since this is, at the moment, more or less the only front...

If you think that's the only front, perhaps you aren't following all of the news. Gay marriage, teaching of evolution, abortion, et al. all have had legislation come up within the last thirty days.

[Ghostbear]

If you think that's the only front, perhaps you aren't following all of the news. Gay marriage, teaching of evolution, abortion, et al. all have had legislation come up within the last thirty days.

Fair enough, I did have some very poor (and lazy) word choice there. How about "most publicized and attention getting front by a wide margin"? Gay marriage is an issue that those opposed to it are very quickly losing, abortion factors very directly into the policies negatively affecting women, and I'm not sure that the evolution debate has been much of a lightning rod as of late that it was just a few years ago, though I could be wrong.

EDIT:
Perhaps closer to what I mean to say: it's such a large front that it's practically a war all on it's own. Similar to how the Pacific theater of WW2 was often called the "Pacific War" (it's even the title of wikipedia's article on such) -- it was such a large subsection of that conflict, with sufficient distance from the other theaters, that it was in many ways its own war.

[IcedT]

If you think that's the only front, perhaps you aren't following all of the news. Gay marriage, teaching of evolution, abortion, et al. all have had legislation come up within the last thirty days.

Fair enough, I did have some very poor (and lazy) word choice there. How about "most publicized and attention getting front by a wide margin"? Gay marriage is an issue that those opposed to it are very quickly losing, abortion factors very directly into the policies negatively affecting women, and I'm not sure that the evolution debate has been much of a lightning rod as of late that it was just a few years ago, though I could be wrong.

This is why I'm kindof war about using the phrase "war on women." These things are definitely happening and they're weird and scary as hell, but I think the people behind them are in the minority even among Republicans and they seem to be defeated in most important cases. So I definitely think there's a possibility of overstating the danger and then just looking ridiculous in front of the many conservatives who don't support these things but are mostly ignorant of how much their party pushes for them.

EDIT:
Perhaps closer to what I mean to say: it's such a large front that it's practically a war all on it's own. Similar to how the Pacific theater of WW2 was often called the "Pacific War" (it's even the title of wikipedia's article on such) -- it was such a large subsection of that conflict, with sufficient distance from the other theaters, that it was in many ways its own war.

I apologize for this epically OT tangent, but- the Pacific War is often considered its own, distinct war because it began with Japanese invasions in China that weren't connected with Hitler's or Mussolini's wars and had their roots from the Russo-Japanese War and earlier. It's all WW2 in American minds because we entered both the Pacific and European wars at the same time, and by then Japan, Italy and Germany were all formally allied.

EDIT: Misattributed Pacific Theater quote to Thesh.

[Thesh]

To backtrack for a minute, since I didn't have time to address this earlier:

the reality is that the current phase of their war against secularism is policies and laws that disproportionately affect women.

But that's kind of like calling the Vietnam war "The war on infantrymen". Infantrymen made up most of the casualties (if this is factually incorrect, assume it isn't for the sake of argument), but there were also pilots and civilians killed as well. On top of that, the goal of Vietnam wasn't to kill infantrymen, the goal was to impose political ideologies.

In the same way, it's not just women affected, it's men and children as well. A married couple with one child who is just scraping by might choose to use birth control, or if it fails, may choose an abortion. Without that, the cost of another kid can put all of them well below the poverty line, significantly reducing the quality of life for the husband, wife, and children. On top of that, the motivation behind trying to ban abortions and birth control is to impose religious ideologies, not misogyny.

[Ghostbear]

This is why I'm kindof war about using the phrase "war on women." These things are definitely happening and they're weird and scary as hell, but I think the people behind them are in the minority even among Republicans and they seem to be defeated in most important cases. So I definitely think there's a possibility of overstating the danger and then just looking ridiculous in front of the many conservatives who don't support these things but are mostly ignorant of how much their party pushes for them.

Yeah, there is always a danger of it, but I think it's getting more and more pervasive among their policy positions. Even if the people are in a minority, they don't appear to be a minority of those who actually set policy. I don't think it's at all an unwarranted label in this case, especially with the

I apologize for this epically OT tangent, but- the Pacific War is often considered its own, distinct war because it began with Japanese invasions in China that weren't connected with Hitler's or Mussolini's wars and had their roots from the Russo-Japanese War and earlier. It's all WW2 in American minds because we entered both the Pacific and European wars at the same time, and by then Japan, Italy and Germany were all formally allied.

Before I disagree, just going to point out that you wrongly attributed that quote to Thesh.

With that out of the way... I disagree with that:

It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941 with the Japanese invasion of Thailand for the invasion of British Malaya, and the attack on Pearl Harbor in the United States' Territory of Hawaii by the Empire of Japan. Some authors consider the conflict in Asia can be dated as far as 7 July 1937, beginning with the Second Sino-Japanese War between the Empire of Japan and the Republic of China, or possibly 19 September 1931, beginning with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. However, it is more widely accepted that the Pacific War itself started in early December 1941, with the Sino-Japanese War then becoming part of it as a theater of the greater World War II.

Emphasis mine. Not to mention, while China and Japan were "new" entrants into the overall conflict instead of just against each other, the other groups that were brought into the Pacific were all groups that were otherwise already involved in WW2: the Netherlands, France, the British, Germany, Italy, and the USSR. I wouldn't exactly call them at all disconnected from the European conflicts either -- the British were forced to tie up a lot of war assets in the Pacific because of it, and if the Japanese could have ever entered a sufficiently dominant position, they would very likely have given Germany a significant upper hand against Russia. I'm fairly confident in saying that it was more or less very much encapsulated in WW2, even without the US' involvement. It was just such a large sub-conflict that people were willing to call it a war of its own.

But that's kind of like calling the Vietnam war "The war on infantrymen". Infantrymen made up most of the casualties (if this is factually incorrect, assume it isn't for the sake of argument), but there were also pilots and civilians killed as well. On top of that, the goal of Vietnam wasn't to kill infantrymen, the goal was to impose political ideologies.

In the same way, it's not just women affected, it's men and children as well. A married couple with one child who is just scraping by might choose to use birth control, or if it fails, may choose an abortion. Without that, the cost of another kid can put all of them well below the poverty line, significantly reducing the quality of life for the husband, wife, and children. On top of that, the motivation behind trying to ban abortions and birth control is to impose religious ideologies, not misogyny.

I think your comparison is close but misses the mark there -- instead of a "war on infantry" it'd be saying "it's a ground war" -- which was true: the vast majority of the conflict in Vietnam was on the ground, and the general ebb of the conflict was most accurately determined by the status on the ground. Further, these aren't real wars (obviously) -- when something in the political sphere is called a "War on [x]", it's because it predominantly affects [x]. I mean, yeah, the phrase isn't perfect, but I think it's a fair enough summary of events -- they're attempting to institute policies, both at the state and federal level, that predominantly affect women. What would you suggest calling it instead?

Yeah, it affects everyone, but it's affecting those other people through affecting women.

[Thesh]

I think your comparison is close but misses the mark there -- instead of a "war on infantry" it'd be saying "it's a ground war"

Your comment was that the primary people affected by the push to prevent people from getting abortions or contraceptives was women, so it is a war on women. Saying that calling this a war on women is the same as calling Vietnam a ground war isn't even close to accurate. Vietnam was a ground war in the same sense that this is a legal war. The people who were affected in Vietnam were mainly the infantrymen that were dying. The people who are affected in abortion legislation are mainly the women who are forced to carry children and suffer the financial burden. Neither are the only ones affected, and in both cases the people affected had nothing to do with the motivation behind the war; the wars are entirely about ideology.

Yeah, it affects everyone, but it's affecting those other people through affecting women.

It really isn't affecting everyone through women, it's hitting the people directly and indirectly through money. The only thing that directly affects women specifically is the physical act of carrying the child. There are single fathers who are forced to take care of their kids because their mothers won't. There is government debt, which is impacted by the costs to welfare. Even the example I gave about the family, that's financial hardship hitting the mother, the father, and the children directly, not going through the mother.

[Malice]

The "War on Women" is branding; like all branding, it's somewhat inaccurate but highly effective. It puts a name to and crystallizes the emotions resulting from watching bill after bill in state and federal legislatures proposed (and in many cases passed) attacking women's health and rights. Arguing with that branding is unnecessary, unhelpful, and won't work. Unless you can argue with the actual facts the branding is meant to encapsulate, you're wasting your time.

[Thesh]

I don't think that "The war on women" is good branding; it does nothing but introduce a red herring to the debate. If you use it, all someone in favor of banning abortion has to prove is that they are not on a war against women and they bring people to their side of the new, pointless debate. If it wasn't for the branding, the only thing they can do is repeat "abortion is murder, fetuses are people" over and over again.

[cephalopod9]

The "War on Women" is branding; like all branding, it's somewhat inaccurate but highly effective. It puts a name to and crystallizes the emotions resulting from watching bill after bill in state and federal legislatures proposed (and in many cases passed) attacking women's health and rights. Arguing with that branding is unnecessary, unhelpful, and won't work. Unless you can argue with the actual facts the branding is meant to encapsulate, you're wasting your time.

Yes. This thing.
It is limiting, but forceful and useful.

[jakovasaur]

War on Christmas:Secularism::War on Women:Anti-secularism?

Neither one is a very good descriptor of what is happening, but both are good "branding", I guess.

[Ghostbear]

Your comment was that the primary people affected by the push to prevent people from getting abortions or contraceptives was women, so it is a war on women. Saying that calling this a war on women is the same as calling Vietnam a ground war isn't even close to accurate. Vietnam was a ground war in the same sense that this is a legal war. The people who were affected in Vietnam were mainly the infantrymen that were dying. The people who are affected in abortion legislation are mainly the women who are forced to carry children and suffer the financial burden. Neither are the only ones affected, and in both cases the people affected had nothing to do with the motivation behind the war; the wars are entirely about ideology.

See, this is where analogies cease being useful. In a war-war, the people fighting the conflict are the ones that suffer the most adverse affects from it, so highlighting that something is a ground war is also highlighting that infantry are going to be the ones most at danger. The people fighting our politicized wars -- the lawyers, the lawmakers, those with influence -- aren't going to suffer the main consequences of it, so highlighting that it's a legal war does not also highlight who gets the majority of the burden. Calling it a war on women is sufficiently accurate because of how it deals with women's issues, because even though those issues are of importance to men, they are issues that deal very directly with women.

Also, what Malice said.

It really isn't affecting everyone through women, it's hitting the people directly and indirectly through money. The only thing that directly affects women specifically is the physical act of carrying the child. There are single fathers who are forced to take care of their kids because their mothers won't. There is government debt, which is impacted by the costs to welfare. Even the example I gave about the family, that's financial hardship hitting the mother, the father, and the children directly, not going through the mother.

No, it is affecting them through the woman, including in your example. The family shares the overall burden, yes, but the reason that burden hit them is because a right (namely, to choose to have an abortion) was denied to the woman. It's hitting them all through hitting the woman.

[Malice]

I don't think that "The war on women" is good branding; it does nothing but introduce a red herring to the debate. If you use it, all someone in favor of banning abortion has to prove is that they are not on a war against women and they bring people to their side of the new, pointless debate. If it wasn't for the branding, the only thing they can do is repeat "abortion is murder, fetuses are people" over and over again.

Yes, all somebody tarred with the "soldier in the war on women" brush has to do is prove that they're not on a war against women in order to win points.

But Republicans can't actually seem to do that.

Take a look at this video here, which has two liberals debating two conservatives on the concept.

The three Republican counter-arguments in that video are:

1) "Nuh-uh!"
2) "Look, this is nothing new, we've always been against women's rights."
3) "LOOK OVER THERE! It's the economy! Let's talk about that."

I mean, my god, the guy in there actually says Republicans aren't at war with women, heck, "some of us are even married to them". Those quote marks mean that is a quote.

That's what makes this both effective and good branding. Compare to the "death panels" branding effort: while that also tapped into widely-felt emotions about government intrusion into private affairs, it was completely wrong on the facts of the issue, and Democrats could and did bring people to their side by explaining the truth. (Okay, maybe they weren't very good at doing that, but still.) Death panels is a red-herring scare tactic; "War on Women" is effective, reality-based politics and so far the only defense that can be mustered against it is "this issue is less important to our election than the economy".

[addams]

I would like to see a world where everyone could go the Planned Parenthood every six months for a head to toe check.

Jeeze. Sometimes referrals might need to be made. PP(Planned Parenthood) is like GP (General practitioner). The staff knows men exist. They, most likely, could treat men.

What is it that men get that women don't? Urologist stuff. Could ya' hire some?

What a wonderful world it could be. A Gynecologist here a Urologist there and nurses and Nannies everywhere.

That is not the case at the moment. The people of the US are what? Are you fighting for one another? Good you!

Don't leave anyone out.
Yeah. That is the hard part. Even Ass Holes would receive compassionate care.

Not every one could work with every one else. Like Chenny. I don't know him. I think that I would refuse. Find someone that does not know who he is. I could work with him, if, I did not know who he was. You? How would you know it was Chenny?

I am not worried about his welfare. He got a new heart. No one needed it more. (eww. Sarcasm. I am sorry. I loathe Sarcasm and I just did it.)

[IcedT]

Yeah, there is always a danger of it, but I think it's getting more and more pervasive among their policy positions. Even if the people are in a minority, they don't appear to be a minority of those who actually set policy. I don't think it's at all an unwarranted label in this case, especially with the

There's part of the sentence there that got left off... Anyway, I agree that it's an apt label. I just think we're better served by giving people specific examples of these sexist and reactionary bills than we are by throwing around a label that's so easily dismissed. I believe in stopping bad bills but I don't care to get dragged into the culture war any more than I have to.

Before I disagree, just going to point out that you wrongly attributed that quote to Thesh.

Sorry about that, I'll fix it in an edit.

With that out of the way... I disagree with that:

It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941 with the Japanese invasion of Thailand for the invasion of British Malaya, and the attack on Pearl Harbor in the United States' Territory of Hawaii by the Empire of Japan. Some authors consider the conflict in Asia can be dated as far as 7 July 1937, beginning with the Second Sino-Japanese War between the Empire of Japan and the Republic of China, or possibly 19 September 1931, beginning with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. However, it is more widely accepted that the Pacific War itself started in early December 1941, with the Sino-Japanese War then becoming part of it as a theater of the greater World War II.

Emphasis mine. Not to mention, while China and Japan were "new" entrants into the overall conflict instead of just against each other, the other groups that were brought into the Pacific were all groups that were otherwise already involved in WW2: the Netherlands, France, the British, Germany, Italy, and the USSR. I wouldn't exactly call them at all disconnected from the European conflicts either -- the British were forced to tie up a lot of war assets in the Pacific because of it, and if the Japanese could have ever entered a sufficiently dominant position, they would very likely have given Germany a significant upper hand against Russia. I'm fairly confident in saying that it was more or less very much encapsulated in WW2, even without the US' involvement. It was just such a large sub-conflict that people were willing to call it a war of its own.

I'm aware that the Japanese invaded French, British, and Dutch holdings at the same time they attacked Pearl Harbor, and that they briefly clashed with the Soviets. I just didn't want to get too far into it for brevity's sake. And lately I've been reading things that are from a Japanese or Chinese perspective (where World War 2 is a less meaningful concept than it is in Europe or America and they usually just refer to the Pacific War), and a book by Ferguson that ties every major conflict from World War 1 through the Korean War together as its thesis. So my sense of the chronology is colored by all that.

[Princess Marzipan]

[...]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."

[Ghostbear]

There's part of the sentence there that got left off... Anyway, I agree that it's an apt label. I just think we're better served by giving people specific examples of these sexist and reactionary bills than we are by throwing around a label that's so easily dismissed. I believe in stopping bad bills but I don't care to get dragged into the culture war any more than I have to.

Ugh, sorry. I bounce around a lot when typing my posts out, I guess that one made it past my proof reading. Well, I look stupid (or more stupid than usual, depending on what people think of me).

Anyway, yes, I'd agree that using the specific examples is often best. The title 'War on Women' is apt for situations such as naming this thread, or starting a specific discussion though, I'd think. Now we don't need a dozen different threads going over all of those subjects, and we can discuss how much they are or aren't linked, what the overall results of them are going to be, and we'll even have a space for discussing if the title is appropriate ( ). It's sufficient for succinctly encapsulating the issue, I think. You use the title first, then while discussing it we go into the nitty-gritty of the specific cases.

I'm aware that the Japanese invaded French, British, and Dutch holdings at the same time they attacked Pearl Harbor, and that they briefly clashed with the Soviets. I just didn't want to get too far into it for brevity's sake. And lately I've been reading things that are from a Japanese or Chinese perspective (where World War 2 is a less meaningful concept than it is in Europe or America and they usually just refer to the Pacific War), and a book by Ferguson that ties every major conflict from World War 1 through the Korean War together as its thesis. So my sense of the chronology is colored by all that.

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.