Question? Why so so many people on DU think Women's rights are

[saracat]

unimportant and gay rights are unimportant but the War is the only issue that counts? I am anti-war but the other issues also effect me and effect me more directly. As a woman, my very being is being attacked and it seems that some of the so called anti -war faction have no problem with ant-choice or anti-gay. To me that is anti-human rights and I would like someone to explain to me who that can be democratic? I find those positions to be not only in conflict with one another but in conflict with what the Democratic Party itself stands for! Any opinions?

[niyad]

1. you ought to know by now that women are simply unimportant in the

vast scheme of things--our rights should come AFTER the wars have been settled, the men all have their rights, etc., etc. this is what we have been told for centuries, and it is very sad that so little real progress has been made that we are still being told the same crap--and that some women don't see anything wrong with that.

[QuestionAll...]

5. well one skinny rw woman is important on these forums...

and her vagina as well, today.

bleh.
talk about grunting stupidity in that thread.
I usually ignore Coulter threads but was unfortunate enough to see hot dogs and decaptated heads shoved up her.

pretty disgusting.
but of course when the opposing 'team' comes up with vile shit like this - it will be 'different'.

[lukasahero]

7. "hot dogs and decaptated heads"

Please tell me any post depicting such was deleted. If losing my faith in humanity happens even here, there is no where left for me to turn.

[QuestionAll...]

15. have no idea what became of it or the thread title.

the pic was of matthews interviewing coulter and things went subhuman after that.

[izzie]

9. Maybe to many of us for get the fight it took to get this far plus

look who we put into office. We are half the voters and we keep putting in so many men that love this war stuff for some odd reason. Then one thinks they may think they are soft if they do not vote for a new war every few years. After all some women in Congress do vote for war. And Condi Christian values are just beyond the pail.

[MrsT]

2. I am not a single issue voter

and I have no problem voting the better candidate even if I disagree with them on a few or many things. I'd vote for Casey in Pennsylvania, I'd even vote for Lieberman in Connecticut (if it was between him and Schlesinger).

[fudge stripe cookays]

11. Have you ever held a job?

Many of our grandmothers did not have that luxury.

Have you decided for yourself how many children you want to have and chosen methods of contraception for yourself?

Even some of our mothers did not have this choice.

If you are a woman, I see no other issue as important. We did not get the vote, we did not even get to use birth control without the self determination we have finally earned after hundreds of years.

I'm so thankful I do not have to pull the lever for Lieberman OR Casey. Pieces of shit.

[MrsT]

13. What does that have to do with my post?

I always vote for the better candidate. Casey is much, much better than Santorum. Lieberman, who is my least favorite Democrat in the senate, is still much, much better than Schlesinger. When we have a problem with our Democratic candidates, we challenge them in primaries. That is what is happening in Connecticut, and I think Lieberman will be replaced because of it.

[fudge stripe cookays]

44. You obviously didn't read my entire post.

If I lived in PA or CT, I wouldn't vote for either of them.

YOU may not be a single issue voter, but if you're a woman and you're NOT, you're going to drag the rest of us back to the 19th century with you.

[MrsT]

53. .

"you're going to drag the rest of us back to the 19th century with you."

If every female took your advice and didn't vote for Casey or Lieberman, we'd have Senator Santorum and Senator Schlesinger in November, who are 100% commited to EVERYTHING we don't want.

How would that help us?

[fudge stripe cookays]

57. If every female got out and busted...

their butts supporting pro-choice opponents during the primaries, we wouldn't have that problem, now would we?

[MrsT]

72. But that didn't happen in Pennsylvania.

So we either vote for the Democrat, Casey, who can give us 80% of what we want and aother senate seat or we an vote for the Republican, Santorum, who will give us 0% of what we want and strengthen the Republican majority. Or I guess we could sit out the election and pretend their is no difference between the two candidates, but we both know that isn't true.

As for Connecticut, people are rallying around Lamont. I think he will win.

[femrap]

94. There was a wonderful Pro-Choice woman

running against Santorum and The Democratic Party told her to get out of the race and brought in Casey who is anti-choice.

There are days that I really really dislike the Democratic Party.

As RFK, Jr. said: "95% of the republicans are corrupt and about 75% of the democrats are too." I think he's 100% correct about this.

[MrsT]

97. Lamont was asked not to run

but he did anyway. In Ohio the Democratic Party asked Hackett to step aside so Brown could run, and Hackett was the more moderate candidate. Wilson stepped aside in Washington, but the other candidate didn't.

The prarty does some things that we agree with, and some things we don't. At the end of the day, the primary voters make the call. Are you going to blame the Party if Connecticut democrats chose to nominate Lieberman? I think more blame lies with the voters.

I can't relate to any Democrat who doesn't vote for Casey out of "pricipal" but in "principal" has no problem with Santorum winning. Casey is the Democratic nominee, Santorum is the Republican nominee. One of those guys is going to be the next senator from Pennsylvania. No one has yet to list a single benefit to having Santorum win. There are many benefits to a Casey win.

[femrap]

109. The woman from PA wasn't a millionaire like Lamont

is...he can run without the MONEY that the DSCC can provide.

I know the Hackett situation well....he's a Reagan Democrat. When you say moderate, in Ohio that means Republican Lite. The last thing we need are more Pug Lite Senators. Nearly half of our Senators vote with the Pugs as it is. Hackett was pro-war during the primary and has a terrible temper. I believe Schumer and Reid saw his personality as dangerous.

Casey is a terrible 'hold your nose' and vote for candidate. I've never had to do that. Do we ask men to vote for candidates that would castrate them if they couldn't pay child support? We face Compulsory Motherhood....look at from another way.....Compulsory No Additional Fatherhood. It's all about the Gov't having their hands on your most private and personal freedoms.

If you are pro-choice, Casey will likely stab you in the back. Just like Byrd, Salazar, Landrieu, the Nelson Twins, etc. Roe is going to be thrown out.....you will be a 2nd class citizen...deemed uncapable of making decisions about your destiny. Compulsory motherhood.

I don't think I could vote for Casey....but I don't live in PA...I'm next door and I've got problems of my own! A candidate for Governor who would NO exception for an abortion....even if the mother's life were in danger. We got one big backlash going....

[saracat]

16. Well, I am a single issue voter in this instance.

It is about the same as asking a Black to vote for a Klu Kluxer. If I lived in Penn, I wouldn't vote. Choice is my litmus test. How could I vote for someone who doesn't recognize me as an equal human being under the law? I don't understand how any woman could vote for such a person, then again, I don't understand why that wouldn't be the most important issue to any human being. Basic human rights of self determination. If I have no rights why should I care about the war in another country?

[fudge stripe cookays]

45. Thanks for saying it better than me.

It's obviously SO much better to vote for Casey or Lieberman because they have D's next to their names. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

58. what would you call no rights

Do you really think that "not being able to get a legal abortion" is equivalent to having "no rights"? None?
And being anti-choice means not recognizing you as an equal human being under the law? That is not clear to me.

If your choice is between an anti-choice Republican or an anti-choice Democrat, I still think there are thousands of reasons to vote for the Democrat, if you care about peace, for example, or the environment, or civil liberties, or the working class, etc., etc., etc. Even a supposedly pro-choice Republican is still going to vote for people like Alito and Roberts for SCOTUS and for many anti-choice and anti-civil liberties and pro-corporate judges at the appellate level. Even an anti-choice Democrat is likely to advance a pro-choice agenda in that regard, and if it is necessary for a Democratic candidate to dodge the abortion issue in order to get elected in a very red, anti-abortion state or district, then you should be enlightened and pragmatic enough to see the big picture.

That said, I am having a hard time figuring out how my Democratic governor is any different than a Republican governor would be. Maybe if I had a republican governor I would find out :scared:

[saracat]

62. Yes. I do. If I do not have the right to control my own body and make

desicions regarding my own welfare, what rights do I have that count? What difference does peace or a clean enviornment or prosperity mean if I am trpped in the prison of my body while others have the right to dictate my life? And you mention civil liberties? That is what this is about! My civil liberties!

[hfojvt]

64. apparently none of us have that right

Nobody under age 18 is allowed to make the decision to smoke. Nobody of any age is allowed to make the decision to smoke marijuana. And some people believe that smoking pot is good for their physical (pain relief) and/or mental health. However, they still have rights that count. They have the right to vote. They have free speech to harangue people about marijuana legalization. They have the right to an attorney. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them.

Count your many blessings. Name them one by one. If you have running hot water, a solid roof over your head and are pretty sure of your next meal, then you are doing alot better than 2 billion of the world's people, some of whom are even now being blown up and shot at. But you want to say that none of it matters because of abortion? Abortion uber alles? Everyone in this country and the world has their lives dictated by a myriad of laws and rules from speed limits to laws against homicide, but there is alot of freedom within those boundaries. Although the boundaries should be extended in some cases and need to be protected, you are certainly not in the same position as the millions of convicted felons in the prison system for possession of pot.

[saracat]

65. Frankly, as a male, I don't think you are qualified to have such an opinion

regarding a reproductive health procedure that will never effect you.It is outrageous that you would put a women's ability to make her medical decisions in the same category as criminal behavior.Your implication is that we ought to be grateful we are allowed to be citizens! You speak of "freedom within boundaries" As a male, exactly what reproductive health and medical restrictions are placed on you? Do you have to ask someone if you have a vasectomy? Do you even have to tell a significant other if you have it reversed? Does a court EVER rule on what you can or cannot do for your reproductive health? If Roe is overturned, "I may not be in the same position as convicted felons in the prison system for possession of pot" but many women will be in prison and many more will die. And that is the point.

[hfojvt]

75. that is wrong of course

If Roe is over-turned, that would allow states to pass anti-abortion laws. A state such as California, where most abortions take place, is very highly unlikely to pass such a law. Roe being over-turned does not make abortions illegal, it only makes anti-abortion laws legal. As to criminal behaviour, that is what the law determines. Pot smokers are pretty outraged that mere possession of pot is considered criminal behaviour. Perhaps as a non-pot smoker I am not qualified to have such an opinion. Is that a feminist philosophy, that males will be taken to room 101 or told to shut up whenever they deviate from the orthodoxy? As a male with no health insurance, many medical restrictions were placed on me, but you do not care about the uninsured if their needs come before yours? Is that your position?

[saracat]

78. Of course not. But the point is that you are comparing

laws that have the potential to effect everyone with those laws like "pot' laws that are not gender specific.There is no differnce between male and female "pot smokers'! I asked specifically what of your reproductive rights are challanged? The answer is eay . None. Males do not have to consult /or get approval of anyone to get anything from a vasectomy to a sex change! Women are the only ones who can be forced into such a position. Even now in many states they have to bow to various regulations concerning their reproductive decisions. And the health insurance issue is a red herring. I believe health insurance is a critical need today. I myself have no health insurance and a chronic medical condition that requires treatment evry month. I am a female without health insurance! But riddle me this, if I had health insurance and my pressing need was an abortion, and health insurance woundn't cover it(and they don't, for the record) what the hell good is my health insurance at that point? And you say feminist like it is a bad thing! I am proud to be a feminist and I am proud that my husband is a feminist as well. I am even more proud that he is a pro choice candidate who is endorsed by Planned Parenthood.

[hfojvt]

80. that was wrong of me

to slander feminism like that. I did not react well to the "you are a man so shut up and/or follow the orthodoxy" lead of your post.

My gender should not be an issue. Neither should the fact that drug laws are not gender specific. Your argument was that "abortion laws take away my right to make personal health decisions". I said drug laws do the same thing. There are still alot of other freedoms, including the right to lobby to change drug or abortion laws.

I am not sure if health insurance is a red herring. It is an important issue to me, far, far more important than abortion. Given a primary choice between a candidate who is concerned about the uninsured but not strongly pro-choice, and one who is totally pro-choice but ignores the uninsured, I am going to vote for and campaign for the first one. However, if my candidate loses, I am not going to help the Republican win even if the Republican claims to care about the ininsured. As Bob Geiger wrote, NARAL is being short-sighted endorsing Republicans.

[saracat]

93. It is obvious as this is not an issue you think effects you , it will

never be a priority for you.It seems as if it is all about you.You need insurance so if the candidate is willing to let women die, as long as he gets you your health insurance ,you will vote for him. And you just don't get it. We are NOT trying to enact a new law.We are trying to protect a right that already exists. Marijuana rights do not exist. You can lobby for them if you like. Women shouldn't have to "lobby " to get that which is naturaly theirs.And how can gender NOT be an issue? Can you get pregnant? The fact is an abortion can only happen to a woman. What about that concept can you not understand? Can you imagine slaves , if they could have voted, voting for those who supported slavery because they might give them an extra blanket? That is what a women who would vote anti-choice would be doing. I have zero respect for such women. I also have no respect for the log cabin Republicans.

And before you point out that during the reconstruction many Blacks did sell their vote for such things, I already know and it doesn't make it right!

[femrap]

95. Maybe the Hindus are right and

there is such a thing as reincarnation....May you return as a poor fertile woman. Karma.

Edited to add the word, fertile.

[Quantess]

77. Great, buddy. You know it all, I guess.

:eyes:
Ask any woman of reproductive age what they think of your wise, insightful, reflections on the importance of reproductive choice. I suppose you think we should all pause and reflect on your wisdom.

No offense intended, but, you really don't have the experience and perspective of a fertile woman. Save your breath.

[hfojvt]

81. any woman?

I can go into any number of fundamentalist churches and find women who would be less concerned about laws preventing abortion than they would be about laws preventing suicide.

No offense intended, but you neither prove me wrong or change my mind by simply stating "you don't know". Whether you pause and reflect on my wisdom or not, it would be nice if you could make a substative counter-argument.

AFAIK, none of my sisters is very passionate about this issue and my cousin's wife pretty much told me to "fu$% off" when I was arguing pro-choice.

But thanks for your disparagement. Lord knows, I cannot get enough of that.

[Quantess]

85. I thought I was being pretty polite.

I was humoring you. All I'm saying is that, if you want to "throw your hat in the ring", so to speak, you should have some experience in this matter, if you expect anyone to take you seriously. I'm not taking you seriously, you see.

I'm not saying that only women have experience in this issue. Many, many men have been part of a tremendously important decision involving an unintended pregnancy. I'm going to guess that you haven't. Perhaps you should withhold judgment until that time comes for you.

I'm tired of making substantive counter-arguments. Just visit the Choice forum and read some that have already been posted. Thank you for being interested in this topic. I dare say you might learn a lot.

The pot smoking issue: I basically agree with you, but, it's an entirely different topic than reproductive choice.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. There won't be any womens' rights if Rick Santorum is elected President

And if we win the senate we can block anti-choice judges in the judiciary committee. Those are the reasons I can give you to support Bob Casey.

[saracat]

92. Rick Santorum has absolutely NO chance of being President!

He can't even hold on to his Senate seat. The only reason to vote for Casey is the D after his name, and even then I thank God I don't live in Penn because I couldn't make myself vote.

[Hippo_Tron]

122. Never say never

Did anyone really think that chimp could be "elected" president until it happened? If he loses his senate seat his chances are almost nonexistant of getting the nomination. But if he wins re-election, that's a different story.

[femrap]

96. Who says Casey will vote w/ the Dems?

How many do we have already that vote with the Pugs...Salazar, Landrieu, Pryor, the Nelson Twins, Byrd...it amazes me how disloyal the Dems are to their constituents and to their Party.

Casey will be another Salazar....worthless creep.

[MrsT]

99. If Santorum wins, how will that be better?

You know the benefits of having a Senate majority, right?

And please go compare the voting records of Sanotorum and Salazar. There is a huge difference.

[saracat]

108. Well, there are other states we can pick up a Senate seat in with pro-

choice candidates if the Party would support them! We can have a majority and not have a misogynist as Senator! And I would like to know what difference it would make to my person hood if Casey were elected. He and Santorum are alike as far as women's rights are concerned. Casey may be moderate in some things but why would anyone support the enemy of women? He doesn't support me, why should I support him? For the care he may take for other people? Thank God I don't live in Penn. I could not vote for him. I don't care I will never vote for someone who thinks I have less meaning than a fetus!

[MrsT]

116. "Well,

there are other states we can pick up a Senate seat in with pro-choice candidates if the Party would support them!"

If we get a majority, it will be by the skin of our teeth. Every seat counts. The party is supporting pro-choice candidates all over the country, where do you see otherwise?

"We can have a majority and not have a misogynist as Senator!"

Huh? It is either going to be Santorum or Casey in that seat, how is Santorum not a misogynist?

"He and Santorum are alike as far as women's rights are concerned."

For me to believe that, you will have to show me where Casey claims to want women barefoot and pregnant, and home taking care of the kids. Do you know that Casey supports emergency contraception? Santorum doesn't, but somehow you will still claim they are the same.

"Casey may be moderate in some things but why would anyone support the enemy of women?" Exactly! Why SHOULD we let Santorum win?

"He doesn't support me, why should I support him? For the care he may take for other people?"

I don't have the "what's in it for me" approach to voting that seems to be present in so many Republicans. I look at the big picture. Who is better for Pennsylvania, Casey or Santorum? Casey, hands down. What is better for America, a senate seat with Casey in it, or Santorum in it? Again, Casey. What is better for America, a Democratic majority or a Republican majority? The last few years of Republican rule have been horrible for America, and a Democratic majority would give us much greater power in senate committees regardless of democratic seats filled by senators like Nelson or Salazar.

"Thank God I don't live in Penn."

Amen to that. If Pennsyvania was filled with people like you, we would get another 6 years of Santorum. Instead, Casey is going to win in a landslide. If Democrats don't like him, they can choose someone else in 6 years. But in the meantime they have piece of mind knowing that their Casey is pro-environment, pro-peace, pro-labor, etc. All things that Santorum is not.

[femrap]

110. Just don't think that Casey is going to

vote with the Dems when it comes to SC judges and Choice. Santorum is about as bad as it gets....he doesn't even live in PA and yet he represents the state.

Hold your nose and vote, I guess. It's a shame our country has come to that.

I get the feeling that Choice is not too high on your radar anyway.

[MrsT]

117. Everything is on my radar

And that is why it is so obvious that Casey is much better than Santorum.

I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. Casey will be better for Pennsylvania and better for America.

[femrap]

121. Any one is better than Santorum....

my neighbor's dog is better than Santorum. Casey is simply Pug Lite...and I wish the Dems would stop moving more to the right and stand TALL for a woman's freedom. Compulsory motherhood is cruel. These anti-choice nuts are PRO-RAPIST AND PRO-INCEST. Has this country lost its mind? Or is it just part of the Backlash to put women back in their 'place?'

Patriarchy has done a fine job in convincing (brainwashing) women that their needs are secondary to everyone else's. We are discussing the same damn issues that we did over 35 years ago. It's deja vu all over again for me...it's frustrating. And this time the 'Divide & Conquer" tactics are more sophistated, and the media is so much more consolidated.

If we don't get Subpoena Power with the '06 Election, I think this grand experiment called Democracy is doomed. The neocon/theocrats will come down very hard on any and all dissent. And why do you think they want to keep all those 'snowflakes' alive and well? The Handmaid's Tale is no longer science fiction, IMHO.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. Doesn't matter if we have the majority

When we have the majority we can block any judge in the judiciary committee. Salazar, Landrieu, Pryor, the Nelsons, Byrd, etc. can support RW judges all they want but it won't matter because they will never get to the floor.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. Casey against SANTORUM? You bet!

Lieberman, on the other hand, is an extreme case. He's SO un-Democratic it may be worth losing a seat to get rid of him.

[saracat]

67. Really? Actually Lieberman is more liberal than Casey.

I loathe Lieberman, but other than the recent dust up, his record on reproductive rights was good. The same will never be said of Casey. He was also good on the envuiornment.The only thing they are ragging on is the war and the fact he is a doofus.

[Warpy]

3. I consider all issues when deciding among prochoice candidates

but cross that choice line and you've lost my vote forever. I don't give a shit about which party controls what. One woman hater is just like another woman hater, as far as I'm concerned.

Men simply have no clue how BASIC a right this is for us, the right to self determination in our reproductive lives.

[saracat]

17. Well said Warpy! Applause! Applause!

[Lars39]

4. I don't consider anti-choice Democrats

who,either passively or actively, work to take away the right to choice, to be Democrats.
They are trojan candidates who are hollowing out the Democratic Party.

[saracat]

24. Amen. You are so right!

[TAPat]

6. Thank you - I often wonder the same things, even

sometimes out loud here and sink like a stone - well, I get a couple of snarky comments, then sink like a stone...

My take is this: War starts with men. Men NEED power/money. Women care not so much for power/money as they do for their children, and by extension, other people. War is Man-Made & 99% of men could give a Flying F*** about women and children who do not "belong" to them.

Unfortunately, EOM

[raccoon]

55. Which is why some men will become homicidal if some other man

f***s their sister, or--Goddess forbid--their daughter, but on the other hand, if they f*** somebody else's daughter, sister, etc....oh, well.

"99% of men could give a Flying F*** about women and children who do not "belong" to them."

[smirkymonkey]

83. Thank you!

I always said that war was "the male ego gone berserk" and when it comes right down to it, that's what it is.

[Bill McBlueState]

89. yeah, if everyone could be more like Margaret Thatcher...

and Ann Coulter...

There are plenty of power-hungry, money-hungry, violent individuals of each gender to go around.

[iamjoy]

8. I Don't Get It Either

a part of me is GLAD we went to war in Afghanistan simply because they treated their women so poorly. Of course we're inconsistent, but, nonetheless, let's blast those mysoginistic creeps!

That being said, I don't think any single issue should be a litmus test for a Democrat. Joe Lieberman is a hawk, Joe Biden voted for that atrocious bankruptcy bill. But they're both Pro-Choice. Bob Casey wants to push for an exit strategy from Iraq and for Health Care reform, but he is NOT Pro-choice.

It's hard for me to trust "pro-Life" candidates. But maybe that's because the only ones calling themselves Pro-Life are either militant or condescending - and often don't want to fund comprehensive reproductive education and access.

[Pokey Anderson]

21. The bit about how we are helping the women in Afghan. and Iraq?

Baloney. Malarky.

As the first woman elected to Congress would say, "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."

The US was stumbling in Afghanistan when that idea was trotted out that the US military was now an arm of women's lib. Laura Bush, Karen Hughes, etc. were trotted out to say that kind of thing.

But, the new kind of war that's being fought, with no battle lines, and disproportionate harm to civilians, especially women and children, cannot help women by injuring or killing them and their families.

[iamjoy]

88. We Could Be

I know what Jeannette Rankin said about war.

But look, getting rid of the Taliban was a good thing - we just went about it the wrong way. First, Dubya didn't give a crap about those women, he was okay with the Taliban until 9/11. Then, he made war on Afghanistan, and while it removed the Taliban from power, it did nothing to change people'a attitudes. Then, before finishing the job there, he pulled the military out to go to Iraq. Thus, as a social policy it failed and as a military policy it was incomplete.

I do not buy that the military is an arm of women's lib, not when we have turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia for so long. But, I do see it as one good thing that MAY come out of so much bad.

[omega minimo]

10. "Woman is the Nigger of the World"

yoko ono

[EFerrari]

27. After Zora Neale Hurston " Black women are the mules of

the world."

[LostinVA]

43. And they were both right -- they are STILL right

[madmusic]

12. are you pro "due process"?

It is due process that won the pro-choice debate. That's why the Right hates the courts and due process. They are doing everything they can to undo due process and the 14th Amendment.

If anyone is interested in a basic introduction to law, including GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), etc., here is a good PDF intro:

http://www.jagadvocate.com/libreria/graham-us-lectures.pdf

The real battle is in the courts and it behooves anyone willing to fight it out to know what that battle is really about:

Disrobed: The New Battle Plan to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts

The more rights anyone of us lose, the more likely we will all lose eventually. And they will take all they can.

[madmusic]

54. Guess not.

[Quantess]

61. It's cool, thanks,

but the rest of us on this thread are busy ranting about campaign strategies. :)

[The Straight Story]

14. Not sure anyone really thinks the war is the only issue

but right now it is a huge issue.

Locally people are working on such issues as you mentioned. And I don't think many here have much of a dispute with them and feel comfortable that we have made and will continue to make strides. Not that the battles are over, as the enemy still wants to invade/change things (sort of like terrorism - someone is always waiting to blow things up).

War affects more of the world directly (by our involvement/actions) than do things which are solely within our bounds (gay marriage, pro-choice, etc) and also kills many of our own people - and preventing and stopping this may seem to some a higher priority than 'sexual related' issues.

It's all important to us - some things just need more attention and more focus at times. We are in two wars, two fronts, and that does not include the other issues in the ME that can affect millions of Americans.

[Boohooey]

18. Is this about Mel Gibson again?

The arguments on that thread seemed to be about the connections between his being a drunk-driving ass yesterday and his having all his other opinions all the time.

Or, if not, where are the "so many" DUers who think women's rights and gay rights are unimportant hanging out?

[saracat]

20. Snippy for a new poster aren't ya?

This comment is based on a history which you have yet to learn.It seems others understand that tow hich I refer.

[Boohooey]

22. Both questions were real, not meant to be snippy

Why don't you answer them? Assuming that anyone who asks the OP a question has a lot of gall is kind of Dubyalike.

I rarely do snippy unless someone tries to bully me, or someone else gets bashed for no reason.

[saracat]

23. I apologize. I thought you were being sarcastic. No this is NOT about

Mel Gibson? Why would it be? This is about exactly what I asked, women's rights being placed on the back burner and war issues being to the exclusion of all else. It seems many feel is a candidate is against the war, that is all that is necessary and if he is anti choice, that is okay aslong as he is also anti war.I don't get that as I explained and I would like to know how that fits in with a democratic support of human rights.It appears contradictory.
As for where those posters are, scattered throughout the forums. A few days ago one showed up in the weight loss forum and GD.They show up everywhere which is why I posted this question.

[Boohooey]

25. Apology accepted - thanks!

I have yet to visit the weight loss forum, probably because I need it.

The Dem candidates for my district and state are all pro-choice. I would like them to be more anti-war and more pro-gay marriage - every single one of them hedges on both of those. The war seems (to me) more urgently in need of serious action, like, yesterday, but a lot of other things are definitely in need of action tomorrow. Gay marriage is one. Global warming is another.

I think it is important to vote for Dems, and not abstain if the Dem is anti-choice, because ANY Dem will change the balance of power and make it more likely that Dubya will NOT get away with appointing more reactionary judges, or even (please no) another SC judge. That will be good for women's rights and gay rights and a hundred other civil rights getting trampled right now.

Going to bed now - but thanks again for answering.

[readmoreoften]

38. I'm a lesbian, I can't vote for who will represent me because no one will.

I will only vote for choice candidates. At least that is usually a luxury I can afford within the dem party. If I voted for someone who supported my civil rights as a queer I'd rarely vote. I hate holding my nose and voting for someone who makes wishy-washy arguments about me, who doesn't want to take on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) where LGBT people can't be fired for gender representation (Bill Bradley was the last Dem I remembered who cared about that, I may be ignorant of others out of my region.) But I can't even find a dem who'll tell the bigots that they can't fire me!

So I vote for the choice candidate, so at least I'll have someone who protects me in case I get raped by the homophobes. Thanks candidates.

[femrap]

98. Bill Bradley was good, wasn't he?

I had forgotten about him. He was smart and compassionate.

Yeah, the Fundies got the Politicians on the run, don't they? However, I think their run at power in politics is about over. I think the mainstream folks are waking up a bit and realizing that there was a good reason for separation of church and state.

The hypocrisy of the Fundies is just becoming way too glaring...after all, didn't that guy they love, you know, Jesus, preach tolerance? lol.

[omega minimo]

26. oh shit

we've heard these cliches before, too................................................................................................................ from the "so many" posters you're asking about..................................

:evilfrown:

[LostinVA]

50. Yup

[omega minimo]

56. I'd love to see the whole handbook

at once, instead of bit by bit on DU :eyes:

[LostinVA]

48. Why should she answer something about Mel Gibson???

Ask the people in that thread.

[LostinVA]

47. Guess you haven't read any rape or child support threads

Plus ones on other women-related topics. Or seen the baying for gay blood here on DU after the 2004 elections... or some of the SD abortion threads, or the Andrea Yates thread, or or or or or or or or... the OP is right. Certain remarks and attitudes are allowed to stand here on DU that would be deleted in a nanosecomnd is "women" were changed to "blacks" etc. And, just misogynistic in general comments wrapped up as serious political discussions.

I've almost left DU because of some of this.

[femrap]

101. Do you alert on those threads and the

mods do nothing? I can't read them cuz I get so mad....and if I respond, I'm the one who gets in trouble.

So many of those misogynists suffer from FME Syndrome...fragile male ego. I have no patience with it whatsoever.

[Tom Joad]

19. Lieberman is not fully pro-choice, and casey is not anti-war.

So usually pro-war dems are also anti-choice. Do remember also that the war is very much a women's issue also, as many women are dying from US attacks.

[femrap]

103. I've read that 70% of casualties in wars

are women and children. Considering they're the ones with no guns...I guess they're the easy targets.

I fucking hate war and the stupid men who start them and prolong them.....all for $$$$$$$$$$

[EFerrari]

28. War is war. Whether it be waged upon a nation or an ethnic

group or women or upon gay people.

It's the same damn thing.

[etherealtruth]

46. Too many (sadly) here are quick to dismiss ...

..."wars" on women (wars on their rights as full, equal, self determined human beings) as "cultural difeerences" and NOT the human rights violations that they are.

[smirkymonkey]

86. "When men are oppressed, it's a tragedy....

when women are oppressed, it's tradition." - Bernadette Mosala

[etherealtruth]

91. Thank you so much ...

I have been looking for this exact quote (and whom to attribute it to). I feel compelled to put it in my sig line.

[EFerrari]

114. This is why they didn't want us to learn how to read or write.

:evilgrin:

[Hidden Stillness]

119. "After All, Those are 'Their Women' "

I agree with this, and also think it is one of the worst parts of the anti-feminist attitude, the idea that oppression of women, violence againt women is "natural," "universal/eternal," "why bother, you'll never stop it," etc., and that women are not even bright enough to know what we want and what the real problems are.

"Tradition," etc.: along with this, is the baseless claim that if women in Islamic, African, Asian, countries are "not complaining" (as defined by somebody in this country, who does not even bother to research the topic), then that "means" that they must be happy about everything, or you would hear complaints. They cannot possibly be censored. Funny, I never remember anyone making a similar argument about Communism and the lack of dissent; everybody (correctly) assumed they were oppressed, intimidated and censored. It is a way of dismissing the topic. Along with that is the claim that everything is "personal"--there can't possibly be an actual structure of male oppression and violence against women, no matter how much evidence there is. "He said/she said"; could you imagine a lynching or hate-crime committed against any male, on any basis, being described that way. Yet the torture-murders of millions of women and girls--or, "bitches"--and almost all rapes, are referred to this trivialized, male way; as if there were no crime, only "behavior." The woman's story is routinely dismissed and assumed to be a lie--based on nothing but hatred of women and refusal to grant anything they say. "Oh, she isn't so innocent either..." as if that relates to anything.

Even people you think are on our side sometimes show themselves, unknowingly. I was watching, on C-SPAN a few days ago, a colloquy, (a pre-scripted, question-and-answer exchange), on the Senate floor on the bill persecuting those who would help girls cross State lines to get an abortion, bypassing parental notification, which can be extremely threatening under some circumstances; between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Dick Durbin. Every time Sen. Boxer would refer to the need to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, Durbin would answer by immediately flipping it to "reducing the number of abortions," which Boxer had never said, and which was not the issue, and clearly not the same thing. This is the crowd that will never put any penalties on males who will not take care of their own children, yet do it to us all the time. They are not even on the same wavelength, and do not even hear what we say (except that we are "wrong").

There is the baseless claim that we are "not really oppressed," unlike important males. Yet women suffer the worst poverty, the lowest pay and benefits of all kinds, and very often, daily violence and degradation from abusers they cannot escape. What is the response? Either, "Shut up Bitch," or "Why doesn't she leave?" (like the New Orleans people, with no resources?), or "She must like it, or she would leave," "You women don't even know what you want," etc., etc., etc. Then of course we get the endless parade of "hurt males" who launch these vicious and snide attacks on us, because we have dared refer to what they do. Presumably, the discussion will not be over with, until we have apologized.

As important as any other single part of the attitude, is this contemptuous dismissal of our concerns, as "not important," "some stupid bitch talking again," or "you are trying to make a political issue of nature." Every time you turn on the "news" media--and that includes the internet, by the way--all you get are male interests, told from the male side of the story. The world is in the state that it is in--drowning in its own blood, and with the worst capitalist oppression and slavery since the Gilded Age of the 1800s--because it is completely run by males, from their worst tendencies, and because it is deliberately killing everything women have tried so hard to make happen. You know--whether you care or not--that raping and murdering millions of women each year, keeping them in hopeless poverty with the worst wages, and never addressing their concerns with legislation or programs, is a kind of declared war, too.

[etherealtruth]

120. Wonderfully said!

I wish you would post this response on it's own. If even one person assesses their beliefs/attitudes because of reading this you will have accomplished something.

[Quantess]

29. I hear what you are saying but

It appears that some people are implying that certain issues, such as Iraq and gas prices, are crowd-pleasers that are sure to win votes for Dems. Gay rights and choice, however, may not be as appealing to average Janes and Joes.

I'm not necessarily defending this point of view, but I do agree with the idea that Dems should have a platform with wide range appeal. The widely appealing issues should be played up, while the more "controversial" (I know, it's ridiculous that these concepts are controversial to some people) issues are played down.

Most people can already guess that the Democratic inclination is pro-choice and gay-friendly. I, myself, am about as pro-choice and gay friendly as a straight woman can be. I do want a good campaign strategy, though.

[saracat]

30. Well, strategy is one thing, prostituting your beliefs is another.

I am not saying we are but some are coming damn close and I find that disturbing.

[Quantess]

59. Agreed.

Please, let's not move any farther to the right than we already have, or we will just be republican-lite.

Rethugs are skilled at playing up their popular cards, while shuffling the less popular ones to the bottom of the deck. THEY don't compromise. Why should we have to?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. Why are you saying this, Saracat? Who said gay and women's

rights weren't important? They are, of course. I guess it's something about people dying every day that takes precedence? Everything else is subordinated but never dismissed or forgotten.

[pitohui]

32. everybody's got their own interests

i have to admit i have little interest in war or war threads as i have little knowledge of strategy and really nothing of value to contribute to a discussion of the various wars being conducted in our time

yet -- i certainly don't support "peace" if it is at the price of crushing all the women, gays, wine drinkers etc. in the region

it's a big tent, many feel peace is the biggest issue because if you're dead, face it, you got no rights anyway, and i won't dispute that opinion but i will admit that at times i am uncomfortable with the extreme pacifist position -- on the other hand, our friendly opposition doesn't want peace OR anyone to have their freedom, for them it's all about the dollar bill

there will never be a political party that perfectly matches your thoughts in every aspect, you do the best you can to influence them toward the positive

[earth mom]

33. I'm a woman & of course womens rights/human rights are important to me.

However, since I'm a stay at home mom and not in the work force, my focus is more on the war, workers rights, economic issues, social security, the corruption of our public officials, the corporate control of the government and media, the autism epidemic and how the evil criminal pharmaceutical companies have worked overtime time trying to deny responsibility.

Frankly, I often wonder why people aren't up in arms over workers rights, or the impending destruction of social security, or how the pharma giants have poisoned innocent babies and children and gotten away with it! All of it makes my blood boil!!!

Wish people cared more about what is important to me too....but what can you do? :shrug:

[saracat]

63. I don't understand. Because you are a SAHM, your rights as a human being

aren't as important to you? You don't think you should have the right to make your own medical decisions? You put all the other social causes first?What would you say if they outlawed birth control? And they are moving in that direction. It is a proven fact .Would you be okay with that and put your rights on the back burner? Just curious.

[earth mom]

69. What I meant was womens rights in regard to equal pay in the workforce.

For the record, I'm pro choice and pro gay rights/marriage, but those aren't the issues that are at the top of my list in importance. However, I do support those who are fighting for them 100%, but I have other fish to fry.

I am concerned about the very things that are basic rights for everyone and crucial for all of us to live in this country FREELY:

-The right for everyone to have fair and decent paying jobs.

-The right to have a government that represents the people, not corporations.

-The right for our taxes to not be wasted-and more importantly, our soldiers, our children, not be sacrificed-on illegal and immoral wars but rather spent for the good of the people of this country.

-Protection from corporations like the pharma giants who have harmed the vulnerable.

-The right to have social security and health benefits in old age.

Most importantly, I am extremely concerned about the VERY existance of the U.S. of A., which the * cabal appears hell bent on destroying.

[saracat]

70. I certainly see where you are coming from! I just believe they are

all part and parcel of the same picture, and we can't have any of them without the other.All of these and choice are intertwined too closely to be sepearted, IMHO. Thanks for the reply, and best of luck on your efforts!

[earth mom]

71. I see where you are coming from too...

So many issues and problems, where do we start?! :banghead:

Good Luck to you too! :hi:

[ruggerson]

34. Terrific post

I've often wondered the same thing.

It's like there's a whole contingent of liberals who care far more about Iraqis than they do about their American sisters getting their own rights systematically stripped from them.

[OneBlueSky]

35. keeping women from power is essential to maintaining . . .

the war-making patriarchy . . . allowing feminist viewpoints and sensibilities to impact public policy would put a real crimp in their style . . .

[omega minimo]

79. THIS is WHERE ALL the ISSUES CONNECT

Sorry for yelling but OneBlueSky put it well:

"keeping women from power is essential to maintaining the war-making patriarchy . . . allowing feminist viewpoints and sensibilities to impact public policy would put a real crimp in their style . . ."


This is where all the issues--
including the bogus "wedge" issues
and the "Abrahamic triangle" questions for the religious
and the determination of leaders to not really address the issues--
connect.

This is why it is imperative for women
to connect and communicate
to quit getting bogged down in mindgames that disrupt communication
to save us all.

This is why SOME men understand and care about women's issues and women's inclusion, as well.

[femrap]

104. DIng! Ding! Ding!

OneBlueSky is the winner! That's it. Women would put more than a crimp, I bet.

[DarkTirade]

36. That's the nice thing about voting against the republicans...

you get all three!

[Ignoramus]

37. I was wanting to start a thread asking the opposite

I have a problem with the accusation of people being single issue voters when it considers killing.

People's lives are not just an issue among other issues. If your child or your lover or your parents were going to be killed, it would be distressing beyond comprehension. When people are slaughtered you should feel that multiplied. Instead people talk about it as being similar to other social issues.

Issues are not equal, some are deal breakers.

So, in general, yes. Not having people slaughtered is more important than choice, gay rights and women's rights, but it depends on the specifics.

For example, if there were an anti-militarism candidate who actively wanted to lobotomize gay people, or do some other thing that is aggressively bad concerning sexism or homophobia, I would consider that to negate the candidate's anti-militarism.

If the candidate were anti-militarism but too lame to take a stand on gay marriage, I would consider the anti-militarism to negate the lameness, because being lame on gay marriage is not as actual as causing slaughter to happen.

If it were true deadlock, i.e. gay lobotomizer anti-militarist vs. pro-militarist anti-gay lobotomizer, I would decide that I have to reject my supposed choices and decide it's time for a third party to get my support.

This is actually pretty much where I am now. All sides seem to support slaughter, so I think that means it's time to abandon the idea that short-term success based on compromise will happen.

On that idea, I agree with that end of environmentalism article that people who are liberal need to learn that losing can be part of long term gain, and that authenticity is what is truly needed to get solid support with our fellow citizens.

[readmoreoften]

39. If abortion is overturned more women will be dead than you think.

Back street abortion is a form of violence. I had three friends hospitalized for being gaybashed in one summer alone-- one had his cornea torn off, one woman was beaten by a gang of men after knocking out a bouncer. What makes you think that those who are weak on fighting injustice at home will fight for justice abroad. I'm not so sure.

Meanwhile, I'll vote my interests. I don't know of any pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-labor, senators who are also pro-war, so I think I'm safe.

And by the way, GLBT people were often institutionalized and incarcerated up until the APA overturned the idea that homosexuality was a mental disorder in 1973. And how many of us have to be murdered before we're worth voting for. What's the kill ratio? Some of us have our own war to fight.

[femrap]

105. If Roe is overturned, I think of the

unwanted children brought into this world. Unwanted children can grow up to be very unhappy adults. Compulsory motherhood is vile. IMHO, there is no bigger responsibility than motherhood...and to force a women into that who is not ready, doesn't have the money, the ability, a willing father to help, whatever...it is just a crime. It's cruel.

[smirkymonkey]

84. Does it ever occur to you that if women and gay men had more

power and more influence there might not be any wars to oppose?

Just saying.

[mogster]

40. In a world where every political 'value' seems to be afloat

Feminism, or equal rights, is a beacon of where we should go. Take a look at the world scene; old men everywhere, fighting their useless battles based on honor and political positioning. The term 'Clash of the Civilizations' is much used, I'd rather call it the 'Clash of the Patriarchs'. It's tribalism versus modern society, and it's not accidental that the Bush-family has all the hallmarks of being a clan.

[Hosnon]

41. I'll admit to a hierarchy of issues. Some things are more important to me

and arouse my interest more - like executive power, global conflicts, democracy, etc.

Civil rights are important to me but if I had to represent the Democratic party on one issue, it would be along the lines of national security and the international arena.

[lukasahero]

42. Just out of curiosity

are you a white straight male?

[Hosnon]

51. Haha, I thought about editing that in: Yes I am. nt

[lukasahero]

118. At least you're honest.

Seriously, not trying to make fun or diminish your opinion, but whenever someone says "civil rights are important to me but...", it's usually obvious that the fight for civil rights doesn't actually affect them.

[Hosnon]

130. Why would I lie about that? And you're right, the fight for civil rights

affects me less than many other people in this country. That leads to a bit of apathy on my part but I acknowledge that.

As liberals and/or Democrats we probably share a lot of the same views. But if my passion is something other than Civil Rights why should I not focus my energy on what is - I'll be more effective that way.

It's a bit like fighting with our backs against each other - you cover my ideals from one angle and I'll do the same for you from another.

[LostinVA]

52. I was wondering that too, Lukas

Because I think civil rights are THE issue every single year, in every single election, because so much else stems from them. Without them, this nation has no soul.

[femrap]

106. they kinda stand out like sore thumbs...

don't they? No offense to the SWM...but don't you ever try to look at the world from someone else's viewpoint?

[Hosnon]

128. Ugh come on - of course I do. I said I have a hierarchy. That fight is not

number one on my list but it is a close second or third. And yes, being a white male has a lot to do with that - we have an easier time focusing on other things.

It's a big party. You fight for your passion and I'll fight for mine - more efficient than everyone trying to be gung-ho about everything.

[femrap]

131. Well....at least you realize your sense of

privlege that living in a patriarchy grants you. Is that how you want to keep it? Women continue to be oppressed while you have an 'easier time focusing on other things?' Such as?

Are you an engineer?

[Iniquitous Bunny]

60. Good question.

I suppose because historical they've always been able to vote, own property, have control sexually and reproductively. Maybe it just doesn't seem like an "important issue" to some of those who have always held those rights.

[laura888]

66. Speaking as an American woman...

...my troubles are nothing compared to those of anyone, male or female, living in the ME.

[saracat]

68. And speaking as an American woman, they shouldn't be! But if we

don't move to protect ourselves and consider OUR rights first, we could be in such a state. We need to guarantee the rights ogf our citizens first, especially our wome as they are the most in jeopardy, before we intedrvene in the affairs of other nations.

[etherealtruth]

90. I'm an other American woman ...

I am definitely more comfortable (safe) than any man woman or child in the war torn areas of the ME.

I also know that if a person (politician) does not support my freedom, equality and right to self determination here ... they will NOT support it in the world at large, they will do little/nothing to address the plight of women world wide.

The issues are intertwined. Women can't change the discourse if they are not allowed to participate. (I understand that you are in no way implying that women not fully participate ... I see these issues as attempts to backslide and place women in a sub-category of Americans).

[Quantess]

111. While I appreciate the consideration you give to the women of M.E.

and I must agree, yes, they have it much worse in general, and I do realize I have it pretty good compared to some women.

But, I think the undertone of that statement is "you can't complain, stop trying to demand your rights, because you have it better than those women over there".
I say, so what. I'm not going to settle, just because I have it better than those women over there.

[saracat]

112. Thank you , thank you quantessd! I am grateful to those of you

who can state this point far more eloquently than me! I am not going to "settle " either and that sort of reasoning just makes me angry!

[bobbolink]

73. In short, because it's many years since the civil rights struggles,

including women's rights, and many (including women!)take the advances for granted, and follow the mass media in putting down any but white males. If you haven't noticed, the "humor" now is very often of the mean type, and that includes some of Jon Stewart, unfortunately.

As far as what's important, you are right... the war trumps all.

HOWEVER, you must really admit that gay rights has a big impact! It's high on the agenda of many Dem candidates, and all the RW attacks brings out much support. NOt too long ago, there was a huge campaign here on DU to call and write about the proposals in Congress. You must admit that that campaign here on DU was hugely successful.

If you really want to feel unimportant and left out, try being poor! Have you ever noticed just how little weight poverty issues are given here??? Have you ever noticed some of the truly mean things said to those who are or relate to poor people? Saying the same level of mean things about gay people would be unthinkable here.

So, believe me, it could be much worse.

I wait for the day when gay folks want to join in the struggle for poverty issues!!

[femrap]

107. Good post, Bobbolink.

What do you think is the number one way to fight poverty? Education? More funds for Head Start?

Will we ever see males educated about birth control? Ever?

Oh...and you're right about Jon Stewart...mean and sexist. I don't watch him anymore. So far I'm OK with Colbert. How about you?

[LWolf]

74. I don't see the logic here.

Being anti-war does not make anyone automatically pro- or anti- any other issue.

I don't see a bunch of anti-war people not supporting civil liberties, though. Usually, valuing human life and the planet enough to be pro-peace also means valuing civil liberties.

:shrug:

[saracat]

76. I agree with you but my point was there are a lot of anti war people who

don't support civil liberties and I find that both ironic and a contradiction in terms.That is the point of my post. I honestly don't see how one can not support civil liberties and yet be anti war.

[LWolf]

102. I don't really get that either,

but I haven't seen too many like that. Many of those are not "anti-war," they may just be anti-THIS war, or they may just disagree with the way a war has been waged. In other words, they are really more hawk than dove.

[Swamp Rat]

82. Women's rights, gay rights, transgender rights, etc are as important to me

as the others. Without civil rights for ALL we have no "America," in my opinion.

[readmoreoften]

100. here here swampie /nt

[SensibleAmerican]

113. Do you love all your children?

The fact that you have more than one child doesn't cause you to love your children any less?

Same logic applies to us focusing on women's rights, gay rights, and ending the war (for those who support all three).

[saracat]

115. Great post!

[ComerPerro]

124. I think you know that this post is a load of crap

show me some examples of DUers supporting anti-choice or anti-gay legislation or movements.

[saracat]

125. It is against DU rules to call anyone out but I have been

debating a certain poster who states she is "Pro -Life " and is pleased that money she contributes to anti-choice establishments goes to that cause. If you hunt you will find examples of both anti choice and anti gay threads.

[ComerPerro]

126. I'd hardly call that "so many people"

[saracat]

127. There are many more as other posters in this thread have indicated.

It is NOT just me stating this.And I cannot give you a list of posters.That would be wrong.

[JAbuchan08]

129. The war is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with this country

the issues you mentioned included. If liberals weren't effeminate homos and lesbians, why else would they be in the anti-war movement.

[savemefromdumbya]

132. need to worry about the economy and human rights in general