Sluts Unite/War on Women?

[PiKA2001]

http://news.yahoo.com/sluts-unite-ag...-politics.html

Watch out Republicans, here come the sluts.
Women's rights activists are banding together to "Rock the Slut Vote" in an online effort to register women to vote and cast their ballots against Republicans in 2012.
"If the GOP thinks that throwing the word 'slut' at us at this point is going to silence women they have another thing coming," said Susan McMillan Emry, the site's founder.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh thrust the derogatory word into the political arena in February when he called law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" for testifying before Congress in support of contraceptives.
Following the national backlash over Limbaugh's name-calling, "Rock the Slut Vote" is now aiming to "diffuse" the offensive term, Emry said.
Taking a vein from comedian Jeff Foxworthy and his "You might be a Redneck if…" jokes, Emry's website gives visitors 22 reasons why "You might be a slut," including "if you've ever used contraception" or "if you're still downloading Dixie Chicks music" or "if you don't go to church."
The site aims to "re-appropriate" the word "slut" so that Limbaugh and other Republicans cannot use it to "bully and silence women," Emry said.
"It's really about taking the power away from that word more than it is about Rush Limbaugh," she said. "He gave the word the notoriety but we are trying to take it back."

I don't think it's fair to say that Rush's slut comment was in line with GOP principles especially since several top GOP leaders blasted Rush for making the comment.

It would be interesting to find out how the founder of this movement feels about Bill Maher calling a certain female politician a c*nt. IDK, maybe the GOP can have their own "Rock the C*nt Vote" .

while the rather shocking name may catch voters' eyes, Emry could have a hard time selling the message to prospective female voters.
Only three in 10 women said they believe there is a "wide-scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services," according to a Kaiser Health Tracking poll in May. And just 5 percent of female voters said the issue they want candidates to talk about most is women's health, compared to 60 percent who said the economy was most important.

What do the GC ladies think? Is there really a "war on women" or is this political smoke and mirrors to distract voters from more real, serious issues affecting the country today?

[Kevin]

I don't think it's so much a war on women as an attack on reproductive rights. That tends to affect women more, but characterizing it as such totally misses the intent of what the proponents of personhood, etc., are all about.

It's really political smoke and mirrors to distract voters. Pretty much none of the stuff being promulgated lasts longer than it takes someone to go and get a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the law's implementation.

I really wish we'd be more focused on fixing healthcare, which is going to be an absolute debacle, doing something about the cost of the military and social services, properly regulating and supervising the financial markets, or increasing taxes to an appropriate level considering the amount of government spending we have. Any of those subjects matter a hell of a lot more than this stuff and no one wants to talk about any of it.

[barbino]

I'm a Republican woman and this is ridiculous. The thought that it is actually being used to market merchandise is especially bizarre. We have many more, real serious issues affecting the country now - for instance, "Is Mitt Romney really a unicorn?"

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/03/453...e-hes-not.html

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't think it's so much a war on women as an attack on reproductive rights. That tends to affect women more, but characterizing it as such totally misses the intent of what the proponents of personhood, etc., are all about.

As you know, characterizing it as such emphasizes the outcome rather than the intent. The outcome is arguably most important because the range of intents is debatable.

I contend that groups and individuals know not only what they want but whom they want to be impacted by what they want.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As you know, characterizing it as such emphasizes the outcome rather than the intent. The outcome is arguably most important because the range of intents is debatable.

The range of intents is subjective down to the person. The outcome (or at least the desired outcome) is pretty easily ascertainable.

I contend that groups and individuals know not only what they want but whom they want to be impacted by what they want.

Probably so, but many of the proponents of such 'war on women' legislation are mouthbreathing hillbillies who wish to impose their sectarian religious views on everyone else without a thought to things which might be relevant such as the Constitution, civil rights, etc.. (there i go attempting to describe intent).

My basic point is that all of it is a meaningless sideshow. Regardless of their intent, most of their leaders are pretty clear that they're passing laws they know are probably unconstitutional as part of a throw everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick desperation play.

It's an emotional issue which both the right and left are going to be engaged in and each can use these issues to motivate their core constituencies when these issues really aren't a serious part of any policy discussion and aren't even really on the table in any way, shape or form.

[VandalSquirrel]

I think they are going to alienate people who might otherwise be on board with the issues. It is also very white lady oriented and that's not going to help forward women's position or rights if the "minority" (who are actually a numerical majority) is either not welcomed or included.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The range of intents is subjective down to the person. The outcome (or at least the desired outcome) is pretty easily ascertainable.

And that is why this is being billed as a war against women.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Probably so, but many of the proponents of such 'war on women' legislation are mouthbreathing hillbillies who wish to impose their sectarian religious views on everyone else without a thought to things which might be relevant such as the Constitution, civil rights, etc.. (there i go attempting to describe intent).

I understand the rest of your post and just wanted to ask what this assessment is based on.

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I think they are going to alienate people who might otherwise be on board with the issues. It is also very white lady oriented and that's not going to help forward women's position or rights if the "minority" (who are actually a numerical majority) is either not welcomed or included.

Black Feminism 101. These things are usually designed for the majority which is why the minority forms subteams.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I think they are going to alienate people who might otherwise be on board with the issues. It is also very white lady oriented and that's not going to help forward women's position or rights if the "minority" (who are actually a numerical majority) is either not welcomed or included.

I tend to agree. It's cutesy when a group of women who largely don't suffer so acutely from the intersection of sexual and political games throw it about, but the societal view of "sexy" or "trashy" or "whorish" minority women isn't cute.

That said, I do think there's been a concerted effort to curtail reproductive rights lately. So many similar bills, with similar verbiage in so many states, points to a rise in (sorry to say it) Republican pandering to a more extreme right "base" they believe they have (which is actually a pretty small number of lobbying organizations). And only folks affected by these "social issues" care to try to stop it.

What people tend to neglect in the debate is that reproductive rights and healthcare are an economic issue. A woman's control over when and how she has children is central to her economic well-being and that of her family. Access to routine reproductive healthcare allows for earlier identification and prevention of health problems which is less expensive in the long run.

And it's not just reproductive issues that are on blast right now. Senate Republicans blocked a pay equality act today. Don't get me started on the Violence Against Women Act and the posturing going on over that.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Black Feminism 101. These things are usually designed for the majority which is why the minority forms subteams.

I doubt that these organizers are going to look back on how the successes of First and Second Wave Feminism often didn't benefit or include women who aren't white and middle class or higher. Third wave feminism stated to be more inclusive, but there is still so much to learn, discuss, and be done; and often white privilege and paternal/maternalism foul things up.

I'm likely in their target demographic, but I won't get on board for various reasons, and I'd probably get together with a group that isn't so shock value. I'm also towards the Dixie Chicks reference as there are far better, and more recent political performers and entertainers to mention.

I know one can't always tell race or ethnicity by looking at someone, but this page of "Who We Are" looks pretty white to me. https://waronwomen.com/RockTheSlutVote/whoweare

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I understand the rest of your post and just wanted to ask what this assessment is based on.

It's obviously a very unfair and only partially true assessment of the situation. I'm sure a lot of these folks mean well, but folks who think these issues really matter as if they could possibly make a difference by passing some silly personhood bill or placing another barrier in front of folks who need an abortion are being misled.

Even here in Oklahoma, the reddest of the red states, each and every one of these bills has quickly been shot down by the state supreme court.

It's good political rhetoric because folks around here are vehemently pro-life on probably about a 65/35 ratio, but these issues don't really matter because most of this stuff is pretty much settled law. So I guess it's just the mouthbreathing hillbillies who don't know the difference and/or don't care.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's really political smoke and mirrors to distract voters. Pretty much none of the stuff being promulgated lasts longer than it takes someone to go and get a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the law's implementation.

Truth.

Of course, I always think of "Jane, you ignorant slut" when I hear that word.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I really wish we'd be more focused on fixing healthcare, which is going to be an absolute debacle, doing something about the cost of the military and social services, properly regulating and supervising the financial markets, or increasing taxes to an appropriate level considering the amount of government spending we have. Any of those subjects matter a hell of a lot more than this stuff and no one wants to talk about any of it.

I hear you there. Every time I read an article talking about gay marriage or birth control being an "important" election topic I want to smh. Whoever is really that upset about two men getting married or some girl being on birth control needs to get a life...and needs to look around to see the real problems out there. I believe that these "issues" are just distractions for us put on by both of the parties. Look at this current "War on Women" campaign lashing out on a radio host lashing out on birth control to be given to women at no cost as part of the new health care act. I'm in no way against birth control but for the life of me I don't understand why a person who needs medication to save or extend their life has to pay for it but if that same person wants birth control...totally free dude. If that's not political posturing I don't know what is.