Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Archaic beliefs

June 20, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

Jill Cannon made sense in her guest column regarding state interference in women’s health. Sadly, her statements will fall on deaf ears. Whether it’s opposition to Planned Parenthood, contraception or abortion, gray-haired old men and unmarried clergymen will oppose women’s decisions on reproductive rights.

While they try to convince us they’re protecting the unborn, the need to dominate women is at the core of their crusade. Keep the “little woman”  pregnant, in the kitchen and dependent by controlling the money. As she tries to provide for her children, the man will have complete authority over her.

To find where this animosity comes from, our conservative, evangelistic brothers will need to trace their roots to the Bible. It’s likely they’ve  never forgiven Eve and  Eve’s daughters for the Garden of Eden episode. Although it didn’t take much effort to dupe Adam, the blame for introducing sin into the world is laid at Eve’s feet. As a result, they’re convinced that no woman has the moral fortitude to make the right decision and they make sure we are reminded of that daily.

You may win a few battles, but you won’t win this war, gentlemen. This younger generation of males will not be governed by such archaic beliefs. They want equal partners, not subservient robots. How sad that our Topeka legislators are dominated by mind-sets dating back to the last century. It’s time for women to fight back at the ballot box. In the 2012 election, get out and vote for those candidates representing your best interests.

Comments

Dan Eyler 2 years, 4 months ago

I’m sitting here in the easy chair this morning drinking my coffee and reading the LJ World and the letter from Ann. The only thing that comes to my head is thinking how sad it is that the person writing this letter is so darn unhappy. Her world is out of control, a man hater trying to find somewhere to fit it, searching for a fight. The only thing I hope and pray for is that all young men of this generation will avoid a relationship with someone like the writer of these comments, someone who seems so angry and depressed. If there is one thing God teaches men, it is to stay clear of vengeful women.

0

Ken Lassman 2 years, 4 months ago

She is not hateful in the least. Territorial over her own body, yes; do we not want our young women to be as protective of their bodies as a mother is over her children? I do not see how others claiming sovereignty over another's reproductive rights is any different, and the same kind of indignant response against losing control over one's body is a measured and appropriate one.

Thanks, Anna!

6

Ken Lassman 2 years, 4 months ago

If we don't let women have domain over their own bodies, then they become chattel, no more than slaves, and susceptible to the same abuses. It's not an easy line to draw, full of complexities, but it's the only humane place to draw it.

Educating women about responsible use of their power should go hand in hand, just as it should be for men. Will it prevent all abuse? No more than it has for men, but that's the existential reality that makes more sense than giving that right to someone else.

0

tomatogrower 2 years, 4 months ago

"If we don't let women have domain over their own bodies, then they become chattel, no more than slaves"

That's the point. That's what the religious right wants.

1

Ken Lassman 2 years, 4 months ago

Therein lies the hypocrisy. With DNA testing, I suppose that every unwanted pregnancy could also be traced back to the father, who should pay for all living expenses, then--isn't that the way a patriarchy should work? I mean, a woman should stay at home, so the man should pay all expenses until the child is 21, right? And if it is the business of the government to keep track of all pregnancies, it ought to keep track of paternity too.

0

somedude20 2 years, 4 months ago

Thankfully the youth are less likely to believe in fairy tales. This god you speak of is not real and the blind who can't see that will be dust soon enough, best of luck. People like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have tainted religion to the point that it is a turn-off and now the youth will set the standard. http://www.pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx

3

kawrivercrow 2 years, 4 months ago

"If there is one thing God teaches men...blah blah blah..."

Anne is not the only one who is getting and sick and tired of your phony and transparent use of fairy tales to compensate for personal insecurities.

Calling your garbage 'archaic' is putting way too politely.

2

cato_the_elder 2 years, 4 months ago

"In the 2012 election, get out and vote for those candidates representing your best interests."

I fully intend to. And you can bet your bippy that it won't be for any of the far-left moonbats that this letter writer is in love with.

0

tomatogrower 2 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, that Libertarian philosophy only applies to men. I saw that when I was briefly involved in that moronic party.

3

cato_the_elder 2 years, 4 months ago

Tomatogrower, if you're implying that I'm involved with the Libertarian Party, I never have been.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 4 months ago

I thought the "War on Women" talking point had already dropped out of the heavy rotation list.

0

Linda Endicott 2 years, 4 months ago

And of course, men are pure as the driven snow, and have no "carnal knowledge" of their own...like having "carnal knowledge" is the worst possible sin of all time...

Women don't learn "carnal knowledge" all on their own, bub...there are plenty of men out there who are horn dogs, and just itching to find a place to plant their flag, and they're not too picky about where...

Why don't you expect men to be as pure as you expect women to be?

1

Linda Endicott 2 years, 4 months ago

Are you saying that men cannot control their "reproductive rights" before/during carnal knowledge?

Can you say "misogynist"?

0

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

It's a good thing she didn't suggest anything of the sort then.

And, it wouldn't be anything like that either - letting people make their own decisions is the opposite of treating them like children.

5

bad_dog 2 years, 4 months ago

...Tribeswomen... ...recourse... ...exposure...

Just trying to help. Not even sure correct spelling can be of assistance, though.

1

hujiko 2 years, 4 months ago

"This younger generation of males will not be governed by such archaic beliefs. They want equal partners, not subservient robots."

This is true. The anti-woman crusaders are for the most part old grumpy men that won't be governing for much longer. They can believe in their heaven and talking snakes all they want.

Time's ticking, boys.

2

tomatogrower 2 years, 4 months ago

I'm older, and I use to think the same thing, that once the older generation died off, racism and sexism would die away. But it didn't happen. Hate keeps rearing it's ugly face. Why people think they must have power over others, I don't understand.

3

grammaddy 2 years, 4 months ago

Another reason I gave up on the Bible. Find a woman in there that isn't evil.That book was about control from the beginning.

3

bad_dog 2 years, 4 months ago

"She chose to have immaculate conception."

Really? Mary chose this? Wow! Send an alert to the Holy Father.

Mary was pro-choice!

2

denak 2 years, 4 months ago

The Immaculate Conception does not refer to Mary's conception of Jesus but rather Anne's conception of Mary.

1

sourpuss 2 years, 4 months ago

Exactly. I love it when people who purport to be religious do not even know the basic dogma. The conception of Jesus is the Annunciation. Mary's conception was "immaculate" because she had to be born without sin in order to serve as a vessel for Christ.

0

Stuart Evans 2 years, 4 months ago

Women have controlled many governments throughout history; only when religion takes hold do they become second class citizens.

5

SnakeFist 2 years, 4 months ago

Grammaddy, have you watched the Lifetime channel, or, for that matter, any "family" comedy? From Ralph Kramden and Archie Bunker to modern day, you'll have a hard time finding a man - especially a father figure - who isn't abusive or incompetent. Stereotyping and double standards go both ways.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 4 months ago

archaic trolls take the actions of their elected yet biased and incompetent line bluring churchlican stools I mean politicians and act as if they're legitimate and totally ignore the obvious legislative war on women that is being waged because churchlicans have to please their base while the rest of the constituency waits for real problems to be dealt with. by the way where will the churchlicans send their beloved genuis terry lois gregory to carpetbag this time????

1

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

asixbury 2 years, 4 months ago

You are clearly ignoring the issues that have been brought up time and time again that are all about restricting women's reproductive rights. Keep living in your ignorant bliss and the rest of us will do something about it.

1

asixbury 2 years, 4 months ago

Who are "You guys?" Dems? You do not know my political party preference. I could care less which side the attacks come from, just that my personal rights are being trampled on. If you mean women are looking pretty silly, then you are obviously an ignorant male that doesn't want to face the reality of this administration.

1

Dan Eyler 2 years, 4 months ago

Clearly Ann has issues with men in general. Never had one or never had one that treated her like a woman. But on the other hand Ann and others who have posted here have never treated men as men. All these poor controlled women. Sad isn't it?

0

kawrivercrow 2 years, 4 months ago

Did Jesus teach you to fling ad hominem feces when you can't produce a cogent counterpoint?

Where did Jesus get that idea from? Watching monkeys?

0

tolawdjk 2 years, 4 months ago

I'm looking and all I am seeing is attacks against the person: "she's been treated like a woman", "man hater", "abortion". blah blah blah.

Not once have I seen an arguement against her message.

Must be what passes for "intellectual zingers" from the knuckle dragging crowd populating this board.

1

SnakeFist 2 years, 4 months ago

If the writer had made a rational argument instead of an emotional rant, she would be entitled to a rational counterargument.

1

SnakeFist 2 years, 4 months ago

"While they try to convince us they’re protecting the unborn, the need to dominate women is at the core of their crusade."

Wow, talk about a bitter man-hater. Feminism has become a terribly cynical world-view in which everything men do is interpreted as an effort to control women. This reflects the intellectual laziness of pseudodisciplines like sociology and women's studies that blame all problems on the holy trinity of racism, classism, and sexism.

While I am pro-choice and support reproductive rights (for both men and women - it takes two to reproduce, after all), I can at least recognize that many pro-lifers honestly believe abortion is wrong. You can disagree with someone without vilifying them.

2

SnakeFist 2 years, 4 months ago

Like intolerance of the intolerant, the vilification of vilifiers is no vice. Alternatively, like a smoker who warns about the dangers of smoking, a person can be both a hypocrite and right.

Admittedly, many people don't come to these sites to have rational discussions. Many of them are close-minded ideologues, so, unfortunately, responses sometimes devolve into tit-for-tat unfair generalizations and sniping. But the letter writer's rant doesn't deserve the respect of rational discussion, primarily because she's so wrong in her stereotyping and generalizing about men that there's nothing to discuss.

1

verity 2 years, 4 months ago

More of if you can't argue with the facts, attack the messenger.

The ferocity of the attacks which are not supported by what the letter actually says is very telling.

"Wow, talk about a bitter man-hater. Feminism has become a terribly cynical world-view in which everything men do is interpreted as an effort to control women." Not at all what the letter said and your generalization of feminism is as wrong as most generalizations are.

You can call us any names you want---it only causes us to be more determined. My generation may never see true equality, as far as the law goes, but we will continue to fight for the generations to come. And we will put those who won't treat with as equals out of our lives as much as possible.

4

SnakeFist 2 years, 4 months ago

The letter writer wrote: "While they try to convince us they’re protecting the unborn, the need to dominate women is at the core of their crusade. Keep the “little woman” pregnant, in the kitchen and dependent by controlling the money. As she tries to provide for her children, the man will have complete authority over her."

That's an unfair stereotype and a generalization. The letter writer provided no facts, just overly emotional garbage, so there's nothing to refute. Clearly, another problem with feminism is that it self-contradictorily rejects stereotypes about women while embracing stereotypes about men. Misandry is as bad as misogyny

2

mycatsrightorwrong 2 years, 4 months ago

As a 20-something male, who won't be governed by archaic beliefs, I have to say this is a biased, crappy article. I didn't argue once (or care) when my wife wanted to keep her last name, I think gays should be able to marry, and I'm not religious. But I still don't like killing unborn babies (& if you don't know when they're "babies", the only humane thing to do is err on the side of caution), and I could give a damn less about dominating women. As I always say, sex, condoms, and pills for all!

0

Carmalee Winebrinner 2 years, 4 months ago

If only the legislators all espoused your last sentence, we wouldn't be commenting on this article at all.

1

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 4 months ago

The God I believe in is not a sky god, but the Creator of the Multiverses and thus does not reside in one place but is everywhere. The baby is an individual separate from the mother and should be treated with love and respect from conception. It is not the womans body. I really don't think there is a war on women, it is that core beliefs have been challenged by both sides of this and both sides are responding in emotion mind. It is my belief that this ranting about old white guys should stop. It is stereotyping, sexist and racist. I can assure you there are old white guys who have truly loved a woman and treated her with respect and dignity. They also love their children.
For every controlling man there is a bossy woman, and I mean in numbers not litterally.

0

mom_of_three 2 years, 4 months ago

"The baby is an individual separate from the mother and should be treated with love and respect from conception. It is not the womans body."

But its NOT an individual until its born. It is IN the woman's body, and its impossible to separate the two until birth. And why you want to treat "the baby" as an individual, you are stomping all over the mother's rights to HER own body. It is HER body, like it or not.

0

mycatsrightorwrong 2 years, 4 months ago

Not a person til born... what a thougtless, conclusory statement.

And yes, on behalf of all pro-life men, we're very sorry that women have to carry unborn children. But what so many of you "victimized" women refuse to admit is that if we were growing these kids in plastic box, we'd still be against sucking their brains out at 18 months.

0

mycatsrightorwrong 2 years, 4 months ago

correction..."thoughtless" and "18 weeks"

0

asixbury 2 years, 4 months ago

It is still the right, whether you like it or not, for the woman to decide what happens with her own body. If men could get pregnant, they would expect the same type of control over themselves. You can be against abortion, but no one is forcing you to have one. It is an individual choice that should have no interference from anyone else not involved.

1

mycatsrightorwrong 2 years, 4 months ago

Thats really, really nice that you say its a "right", but that doesn't mean it is one. If you've ever read Roe, its one of the least logical SCOTUS decisions in history. If you're siamese twin, you don't get to kill you're twin b/c its "your body". If its murder, you can't get away with it b/c its "your body" and you get an individual choice. You absolve women however you want, but just saying its a privacy matter doesn't make it one... you could say the same thing about using illegal substances.

0

mom_of_three 2 years, 4 months ago

No, not really. You are talking legal and illegal. Its legal for a woman to have control over her own body, whats in it and growing in it. and the siamese twin argument is pretty weak, since its THEIR body.

And you are still stomping over the rights of the mother to her own body. I guess to you the woman is just an incubator.

1

mycatsrightorwrong 2 years, 4 months ago

So if its an unborn child being killed, then its still ONLY the mothers body, not THEIR body. Airtight logic, chief.

0

Ken Lassman 2 years, 4 months ago

frankie, If you insist on biological subservience by the woman to the fertilized egg, why should it only be by the woman? Using your logic, the man should be equally subservient, as his genes are reproduced in the fertilized egg and equally responsible for the "individual" growing in the womb. Since the male's nutritional intake does not provide direct sustenance to this new "individual," and yet he is existentially linked to this growing, multiplying egg, do you believe that the male who provided the sperm is morally responsible to provide shelter in other forms necessary (food, home, education, etc.) until the newborn is raised into independence at 21 years, regardless of the father's relationship to the mother? And if you are going to legislate subservience of a woman's body to a fertilized egg, should you not legislate economic subservience of a father to that fertilized egg? Anything less would be hypocritical at best, immoral at worst.

Or, you can draw the line elsewhere, and say that both men and women have sovereignty over their bodies and give them the tools and education to be responsible members of society. It's still a tricky solution, but that's what you get when you are dealing with highly evolved primates.

1

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 4 months ago

I stand by my belief that a baby is fully human from conception, a being that lives and is nurtured in the womb of the mother. I know for a fact that there are women who love their unborn children, who rub their stomachs to soothe them, who even sing to them, women who find joy in being pregnant and very much look forward to the birth. The baby recognizes the sound of the mother and father and siblings voices.

0

Ken Lassman 2 years, 4 months ago

Nothing I stated contradicts your witnessing and affirming a pregnant woman's nurturing feelings and actions toward their growing fetus. Nobody contests these things as far as I know. But having the government step in and trumping the rights of a pregnant woman in order to protect the fetus' perceived rights requires that that same government step in and usurp the rights of the father in order to secure that fetus' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well in that he is equally culpable for that child's life. This is the logical consequence of such governmental intervention.

If you are not comfortable with that, and believe instead that individual rights of a father and mother cannot be taken away by the government, then a whole new set of issues, no less important, come to the forefront. Personally, to take away the sovereignty of individuals' bodies away from them is very thin ice indeed and I'd rather deal with the issues associated with the latter rather than the former.

1

SnakeFist 2 years, 4 months ago

I agree with you. If the letter writer had simply said there are efforts underway to strip women of their reproductive freedom, and those efforts are wrong, I would have agreed with and supported her. But she attributed those efforts to men wanting to dominate women, as though there could be no other good faith reason.

That's the problem with the letter - in defending the female gender she attacked the male gender rather than miguided ideas. In defending the male gender, I attacked the miguided idea of feminism, not the female gender.

0

Katara 2 years, 4 months ago

You know, she made reference only to gray-haired old men and unmarried clergymen.

I had no idea those 2 groups represented the male gender as a whole.

1

SnakeFist 2 years, 4 months ago

In my (and, e.g., Nietzsche's) opinion, each generation of men are more effeminate than the last. The most unpolitically correct thing to be is a "manly" man. In that light, yes, when she attacked the "archaic beliefs" of gray-haired old men, she attacked the male gender. When she lauded, "This younger generation of males [who] will not be governed by such archaic beliefs", she lauded some intermediate gender.

0

Katara 2 years, 4 months ago

That's interesting that you consider "effeminate" (becoming female or having feminine characteristics) to be a negative thing. Perhaps you are just simply uncomfortable with not having clearly and strictly defined gender roles.

I am not really sure what a "manly" man is supposed to be. Perhaps you can explain what a "manly" man is and explain why men should be "manly" in the way that you define it.

It is an odd belief that younger generations are transitioning into some intermediate gender because they don't share the same beliefs about a woman's control over her body as older generations do. I don't think I've seen that logic before.

Men are still men even if they reject archaic gender roles. Men are capable of performing jobs/or duties that were considered traditionally female and it does not make them less of a man. The reverse is true for women. This idea that men must be "manly" and women must be "womanly" is archaic.

And if you still want to pursue that archaic belief then you would have to accept that the decision to terminate a pregnancy or to not terminate a pregnancy would be completely a woman's decision.

You see, childbirth was, for centuries, the exclusive domain of women. It was womanly. Men were not involved in the decisions unless the women involved them. If a woman felt she could not carry a pregnancy to term for whatever reason, she only had to go to the midwife to obtain what was needed to abort. And many times, the man was not even aware she was pregnant. Menstrual cycles and menopause were not discussed with men. The closest thing to that would be letting your husband know that your daughter had her first menses and could be married off.

And no, she did not attack the male gender by calling out the archaic beliefs of gray-haired old men and unmarried clergymen because they do not represent the male gender as a whole.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 4 months ago

Always willing to put your words in somebody elses mouth, liberalism at it's "best" ?. Thanks for the thrilling view of how you see others with opposing views.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

It all comes down to one simple truth; Woman did not come from Man's rib, Man came from Woman's vagina. It's sad that he's never forgiven her for that.

3

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 4 months ago

The Bible is not a history nor a science book. The meaning of Adam and Eve is that husband and wife are to be joined as one, that it takes man and woman together. That God made Eve from Adams rib means that she is part of him, that he is supposed to love her as he loves himself, and her, him. It is a wonderful story if you take it for its true meaning of love and bonding. So, I take it that women are good with knowing that they would not exist unless there was a joining of sperm and egg and nurturing with the womb. It takes two.

0

Stuart Evans 2 years, 4 months ago

it's a made up story and you take it completely differently than others take it. That's the problem with the interpretation of religious texts; it's always interpreted along the lines of how you feel regarding a subject. Me, I'm pissed off about mixed-blend clothing, and you are all sinners for participating in a world that allows it.

2

jhawkinsf 2 years, 4 months ago

Abortion is to a woman's health what eating at McDonald's is to eating a healthy diet. Every now and then, a person does indeed go to McDonald's and eat a salad and a glass of water. But far more times, it's a greasy burger and over salted fries. And yes, every adult who enters McDonald's has the right to make their own choice. Just don't look me in the eye and with a straight face say that that burger and fries is healthy. Then you're just pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

1

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

Here we go again. This is the third letter making the same basic charge. The first one at least had the courage to tie the charge to the church refusal to fund certain new medial reproductive service requirements. One more time

1 Nobody is making war on women (except the fundamentalists all over) 2 People have a constitutional right to their religious beliefs and the requirement in question is new - not of long standing 3. The vast majority of medical providers and insurance companies support the currently understood scope of reproductive services for women 4. It is inconceivable that the few providers that may bow to their conscience as a result of new law (some already do not provide full service) will lead to anybody experiencing more than minor inconvenience in obtaining necessary services (not new freebees).

The real issue is a bankrupt group of isolated liberals trying to create a wedge issue by shrilly and repeatedly proclaiming a non-existent problem and blaming it on their political opponents – most of whom actually support our current system

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

A governor who repeals an equal pay for equal work law is attacking women. An anti-abortion activist who bombs a Planned Parenthood clinic (and gets away with it) is a domestic terrorist. A government that mandates trans-vaginal ultrasounds and gives doctors a script to read from is invasive big government. Two female legislators in the Michigan state house were silenced for daring to use the word "vagina" on the state house floor. This is not a "wedge issue" or a "religious freedom" issue or a made up "election year" issue. This is a WAR ON WOMEN and your strident refusal to recognize it ranks up there with Holocaust deniers.

5

mycatsrightorwrong 2 years, 4 months ago

Unbelievable... is it really inconceivable for you that some people just don't want babies murdered, & the fact that women carry them to term has no bearing on that desire. Bang all you want, use condoms, pills, whatever, most of us pro-lifers don't care. You can criticize the policies you listed all you want, but saying pro-lifers are against women shows a total disregard for logic.

2

Katara 2 years, 4 months ago

Most of pro-lifers probably don't care if someone uses birth control. However, those pro-lifers are not the ones dictating public policy and lawmaking in regards to either birth control or abortion. The pro-lifers in power in KS have passed a law that states it is perfectly fine for a healthcare provider or pharmacist to deny someone birth control if it is against the healthcare provider's or pharmacist's belief. They are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. None of the legislation that addresses any issue that concerns women's reproductive rights and women's healthcare do squat for anyone after the fetus slides through the birth canal.

There is no increased enforcement for child support nor any serious penalties if a parent does not pay child support (Oh noes! Now I can not go fishing or hunting in the state of KS!). There is no legislation put forth to help increase women's access to prenatal or postnatal care. The pro-birthers are pretty big on cutting social programs that help parents and children.

These pro-birthers are the ones you pro-lifers voted in. The only thing they have accomplished to "save the babies" is to restrict women's (not men's) access to reproductive services.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

OMG. Already paid lip service to the terrorists. There are 300 million of us and on any given day a few are off in left/right field. That hardly makes for a holocaust where 6 million plus were killed in a war that killed 55 million.

0

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

“While they try to convince us they’re protecting the unborn, the need to dominate women is at the core of their crusade.”

The only way Ms. Slemmer can hope to make an argument is by using this baseless attack against her detractors. She cannot take them at their word. Ordinarily, intellectually feeble authors like this would at least attempt to employ a fallacy at this point, but she doesn’t even do that. All she manages to do is add more tired dogma and hyperbole and not a shred of evidence to support her claim.

Epic fail.

2

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

I'm with MoT. Prove that statement, BAA. The real truth is the exact opposite. Many women may actually not like Obama but they still see him as the lesser of two evils. At the very least he championed and signed the Lily Ledbetter Act. That's a hell of a lot more than Romney ever did.

2

Stuart Evans 2 years, 4 months ago

which women are coming to the Romney camp? Religious ones who's clergy have implored them to vote Republican to save the sanctity of marriage? Romney is a pile of all that stinks, and you folks are eating it up like a hungry dog.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

bisky1 2 years, 4 months ago

get out of the house much anna?

0

Jason Bowers-Chaika 2 years, 4 months ago

Men, if you are against abortion, then get a vasectomy. Otherwise, an egg is not a chicken.

6

denak 2 years, 4 months ago

Wow, where to begin. It is letters like these that give women a bad name. The letter is devoid of reason and is filled with nothing more than outlandish stereotypes and conjecture. It is also demeaning to women. Women are not mindless idiots who can not defend themselves nor do they all think alike. There are many women in various different professions, including the clergy, the legal fields, and politics, that do not support abortion or the government's interference in the free practice of religion. They are not subserviant, mindless robots nor are they married to cavemen who want to put them back in the kitchen. They are not puppets of a vast "war on women" or grey haired men with some sort of Eve complex. Women make up the majority of college graduates in this country. Nine out of the ten fastest growing jobs in the U.S. are female dominated. And 40% of households now have a woman who outearns her husband. And contrary to the hysterical tone of this letter, 99% of American women have used and/or have access to birth control. Lastly, women do not need a new breed of men--not governed by archiac beliefs--to marry/rescue us. I think we can figure it out ourselves--grey haired old men notwithstanding.

2

Kate Rogge 2 years, 4 months ago

Oh, please. Ms. Slemmer stated her opinions about what she, and others, see as an anti-woman agenda advanced by conservative state and Federal Republican legislators. Her letter does not give women a bad name, nor is it demeaning to women (and who would think so?).

1

Kate Rogge 2 years, 4 months ago

Make that SOME socially conservative state and Federal Republican legislators. The tidal wave of restrictive legislation introduced in this and other states is too clearly directed at women's reproductive health care and choices to be accidental, but certainly not everyone who opposes abortion is on the same legislative bandwagon.

0

shotgun 2 years, 4 months ago

Right on Anna! You sure got a rise out of the hateful old grey men! I happen to be an old grey man who agrees with you!

I am so tired of the loose use of the terms conservative and liberal. People wake up! There is so much between those worn out bookends!

Time to get over the fact that a great American Hero (John Mc Cain) got beat by OH MY! a black man!!!! I realize you were heart broken because that good lookin' doofus (Sarah Palin) really turned you on, ironically she is what brought him down. Quit your whining and get on with life.

3

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 4 months ago

I am offended by all this negative talk about old, gray men. They do not deserved to be stereotyped more than any other group. Pick one man whose views you don't like and then dispute those views. The reader can then choose for themselves which once they agree with.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

Whine all day about "women's decisions regarding their bodies, but until you find yourself concerned with every American citizen's right to make decisions regarding their bodies, you are a hypocrite.

That's the difference between libertarians and liberal/progressive/whatever. We care about everyone's rights all the time. You only care about your cause-du-jour.

Also, I have gray hair and I am probably more pro-abortion than you could stand to be.

0

Kate Rogge 2 years, 4 months ago

So whose citizens' right-to-make-decisions-about-their-own-bodies are not being respected by non-Libertarians?

0

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

Because Liberarians believe consenting adults should be able to do anything they want with their life - provided - they don't infringe upon the rights and liberties of another person. Those who believe an unborn child is in fact a "person" therefore see abortion as such an infringment. Does that help?

2

Kate Rogge 2 years, 4 months ago

Yes, thank you, tbaker. Do you think Liberty275 was referring to fetal rights or was there a different group about whose rights all Libertarians care? The idea of fetal rights don't make sense to me. People have rights and people can be citizens. I don't believe a fetus is a person until it is born, and I do not believe it has rights nor that its supposed rights trump those of the woman carrying it. Does this mean I can't be a Libertarian now?

0

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

Personal property rights mostly around here in the form of government telling business owners their patrons can't smoke. The right to not gamble (ie buy health insurance). The right to visit women of ill repute. The right to ingest any mind-alerting substances. The right to not wear a seatbelt. The right to not live. The right to marry six wives. The right to keep as much of the money a person earns as is possible. The right to abort a fetus through the third trimester for any reason.

Pick one. The left tramples as many as the right does.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 4 months ago

This is so hysterical it's hard to figure which part to start ripping. Here is just one classic point.

It’s time for women to fight back at the ballot box. In the 2012 election, get out and vote for those candidates representing your best interests.

Anna are you talking about just your interests ? It sounds like you're not happy unless dead babies are involved, some poeple find that objectionable and not in their or the babies interest.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

I bet most would go for Captain Jack Sparrow. I imagine Johnny Depp has to beat off the women with a stick.

0

Lawrence Morgan 2 years, 4 months ago

I'm also offended deeply by this talk about grey-haired men. I am grey-haired, and I feel that your comment is ageist. You do not in any way describe me, or many other men. Your letter is very much against older men, and I resent that. Younger men are much the same - they have all kinds of feelings. It does not have to do with color of hair, or age.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.